Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

WRIT ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT

Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Easter Adjournment, a warrant for a new Writ for the borough constituency of Lambeth, Central, in the room of Lieutenant Colonel Marcus Lipton, CBE, deceased.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COMMONS REGISTRATION (CARDIGANSHIRE) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORKNEY ISLANDS COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people within the United Kingdom have currently been unemployed for more than one year.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed have been on the dole for at least 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The number of people in Great Britain unemployed for more than 12 months at 12th January was 333,917. In Northern Ireland the latest information is for December, when there were 16,716 unemployed for more than a year. Most of these were in receipt of benefit.
I would urge trade unions and employers to help to achieve a rapid buildup of the special temporary employment programme which will assist the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The lights have been turned off. May we call for candles?

Mr. Speaker: The lights have come on again. I have never known anyone more effective.

Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his reply represents a substantial increase in the number of long-term unemployed? Does he agree that something like four out of 10 of these people are married men with dependent children? Will he arrange for extensive interviews to take place with all the long-term unemployed in order to ensure that there is as much information about them as possible? Will he organise crash programmes in training and retraining to ensure that these people are given priority in securing good employment?

Mr. Booth: Certainly, I confirm that there has been a very considerable increase in long-term unemployment. That is mainly among unemployed men, one-third of whom are over 55 years of


age. We have appointed a number of special employment needs advisers, who are inquiring into the particular needs of the long-term unemployed, particularly with a view to retraining.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be much better to look at this problem of the unemployed on a more permanent long-term basis than by piecemeal measures in relation to creating specific jobs over shorter periods? Will he hover a little nearer to the Tribune Group's "Alternative Strategy", which would enable us to resolve the unemployment problem, otherwise we shall be in serious difficulties when we go to the people at election time?

Mr. Booth: I am convinced that we need both a long-term and a short-term strategy. We need a long-term strategy to deal with the underlying economic and employment problems and a short-term strategy to deal with special features, including the additional 170,000 people a year who will be coming forward in the next four or five years.

Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even accepting that the overall responsibility for the unemployment problem rests with the Labour Party, is it not rather odd to take two Questions in succession from that side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall be very kind to the hon. Member and say that it is normal practice. I will not say any more.

Dr. Hampson: Does the Secretary of State know how many longer-term unemployed have already had the benefit of Manpower Services Commission or Training Services Agency courses? The MSC seems to have an insatiable appetite for resources, but there are grave doubts about the evaluation of the effectiveness of its schemes.

Mr. Booth: I have no precise figures on the numbers of longer-term unemployed who have been affected by these schemes. But, of the 25,000 places that have been provided through the temporary employment subsidy programme, we are giving preference to those over 25 who have been unemployed for longer

than 12 months and to those between 19 and 25 who have been unemployed for six months.

Mr. Fitt: Is the Minister aware that in Northern Ireland, in such areas as West Belfast, Strabane, Newry and the city of Derry, the figure of male unemployed ranges between 27 and 47 per cent.? Is he further aware that many of those male unemployed have never had a job since they left school and that they are now married and trying to rear families? Will he exert some pressure on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to try to remedy this situation?

Mr. Booth: I have worked in close coordination with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, particularly in recent months when certain measures which aid the whole of the United Kingdom, particularly Northern Ireland, were thought to be under threat from the EEC. But I assure my hon. Friend that we are ensuring that the special measures which we have introduced and which are particularly applicable to Northern Ireland can be run there and that they will be fully funded.

Mr. Hayhoe: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that these appalling figures represent an increase of 150 per cent, since the Labour Government took office? Can he deny that the number of unemployed in a period of six months or more is even worse proportionately—three times as bad as in the period when Labour came to office on the slogan "Back to work with Labour"? Has he no shame over this pathetic performance, and can he offer no hope to the over-55s and the young people who will be searching for jobs later this year?

Mr. Booth: No, I cannot confirm those figures, but I can confirm that there has been a fall in total unemployment over each month in the last six-months period—that is to say, over five months seasonally adjusted. The increase in long-term unemployment owes a great deal to the increased numbers of people coming forward on to the labour market. The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect on the position in 1972 when the Conservatives were in office and when there were fewer people in employment than there are now and when the economic conditions in the country were less difficult.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are now unemployed.

Mr. Booth: At 9th March, 1,398,986 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain.

Mr. Jessel: Is not 1,398,986 an absolutely disgraceful figure, which not only means tragedy for those who want to work and cannot do so but is highly expensive to everybody else as taxpayers, because the social security scheme cannot possibly pay for so many unemployed people? When will the Government resign and give somebody else a chance to have a go?

Mr. Booth: It is certainly the case that the figure represents a great deal of individual tragedy and frustration, and it is a national tragedy and frustration as well. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate, though, that this country is coping with the problem at the moment somewhat better than a large number of our EEC partners are doing. Unemployment in the EEC rose by 8·4 per cent, between February 1977 and February 1978. In this country unemployment increased by 6·1 per cent., in Italy it increased by 21 per cent., in Belgium by 13·8 per cent, and in Denmark by 19·7 per cent. Therefore, some of the measures that we have been taking in this country have fended off some of those individual problems and part of the national tragedy that we are talking about.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us believe that the time for at least partial reflation of the economy has now arrived? Does he accept that it is our hope that the Budget will reveal that? Does he further accept that many of us have sat here and listened to the Conservative Party resisting every measure that we have put forward to try to put our people back into work and that it has resisted public expenditure, wanted much larger cuts and is the party of unemployment and would increase unemployment?

Mr. Booth: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have heard the Tory Party make attacks on all sorts of public expenditure which I believe to be essential in the interests of employment as well as being necessary for the maintenance of

the standard of our public services. I hope that Tory Members will be listening to a statement to be made from the Dispatch Box next week which will give some indication of the Government's desire to see some economic expansion as well.

Mrs. Bain: Against the background of these figures and the frightening predictions of the Cambridge group of economists, is it not all the more ridiculous that the Government are continuing to cut back on public expenditure and have set their face against measures such as the establishment of a special oil fund? When can we expect from the Government a less hypocritical attitude towards the working people of Scotland?

Mr. Booth: I do not accept that the Government are continuing to cut back on public expenditure. The way in which we use the oil revenue is open to discussion in this House because of actions taken by this Government. When we came to office, the oil was not owned by the British people. The British people did not have the interest in it that they now have. They have this interest largely as a result of actions taken by this Government. I hope that the hon. Lady, while joining in the debate to the full and expressing her views on behalf of those whom she represents, will recognise that it has taken political action by this Government to make this debate possible.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now overwhelming evidence that the greater the investment in manufacturing industry and the higher the level of output, the smaller the subsequent labour force? Does he recognise the necessity of turning to the public sector—education, housing hospital services and so on—to provide increased employment?

Mr. Booth: I accept that there is a long-term, ongoing problem as a result of increasing capital intensity in manufacturing industry. I believe, however, that in the short run we need so much investment in British industry that the investment itself will create work. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join with me in seeking to ensure that the wealth produced by that new capital will provide the means of funding a considerable number of service jobs, including public service jobs.

Mr. Hayhoe: Does not the figure of 8·4 per cent, stick in the right hon. Gentleman's throat? Is not that statistic as selective as the same figure which was used by the Chancellor in October 1974? When the Secretary of State boasts of the jobs that he has saved, why does he not itemise the jobs that have been lost as a result of the burdens of increased taxation and unnecessary legislation placed on industry by his Government?

Mr. Booth: The 8·4 per cent, figure is from the European Economic Community. It is not mine. I am doing my utmost, as I hope all hon. Members are, to ensure that Britain's contribution will be towards reducing that figure. As for the taxation and employment measures, I suggest that some of the employment measures that the Government have introduced have improved our industrial relations and have, therefore, been beneficial.

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of the work force currently registered as unemployed.

Mr. Booth: At 9th March, the unemployment rate in Great Britain was 6·0 per cent.

Mr. Goodlad: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a substantial contribution to the solution of this problem could be made by the expansion of small businesses? In that connection may I ask him to reconsider his decision not to extend the small firms employment subsidy to all areas of the country? Second, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to undertake to amend the Employment Protection Act so as to get the Government off the back of small businesses and reduce the amount of pointless form-filling?

Mr. Booth: I certainly agree that small businesses can make a considerable contribution towards the solution of the problem of unemployment. That is one of the reasons why I announced in the House the extension of the small firms employment subsidy to all assisted areas when it had been confined simply to special development areas. That is also the reason why I announced the extension of the subsidy to firms employing up to 200 persons rather than up to 50 persons, as had been the case previously. As for any decisions on the Employment

Protection Act, I suggest that if small firms offer poorer standards of employment protection than large firms they may have difficulty in recruiting the best possible employees, and that would be no great advantage to small firms. I also suggest that small firms can set very good standards of employment protection and that those who suggest that they are incapable of doing so are not very good advocates of the cause of small firms.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not time that the Government acted on the recommendations of the Cambridge School of Economics, which has called for import controls together with a massive increase in investment over the next 10 years? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that without measures of this kind we cannot significantly reduce unemployment?

Mr. Booth: I agree that we need considerable investment. Great support has been given by the Government to investment in industry. We have to be selective in our approach to import controls since we, as much as any other country, stand to benefit from an increase in world trade.

Mr. Penhaligon: Does the right hon. Gentleman have any figure available giving the amount of overtime now worked? Can he let the House know how many job equivalents are involved in overtime and whether it is now more or less than the current number of unemployed?

Mr. Skinner: The Liberals do not do any overtime.

Mr. Booth: The last departmental estimate, based on a partial count, showed that about 16 million hours of overtime were worked in manufacturing industry in a week and about 40 million hours of overtime were worked overall. It is difficult to turn those into job equivalents because in some cases they covered essential overtime and in some cases they could be turned into normal working week arrangements by reorganisation in the places where the overtime was worked.

Motor Mechanic Apprenticeships

Mr. Litterick: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied that sufficient funds are currently available for the sponsorship of all motor mechanic apprenticeships proposed by garage proprietors in the West Midlands.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): I am satisfied that there are sufficient funds available to the Road Transport Industry Training Board for the sponsorship of all motor mechanic apprenticeships proposed by garage proprietors in the West Midlands. Of course, it is a matter for the board to determine what grant it should make, over and above the Manpower Services Commission's key training grants which are available to all employers and other grants which are paid to employers who pay the levy and train to approved standards.

Mr. Litterick: I must confess some surprise at my hon. Friend's answer in regard to the West Midlands since the facts as he relates them are not borne out. However, notwithstanding the increase in funds granted to the Road Transport Industry Training Board, will he bear in mind that there is considerable disappointment among employers such as garage proprietors who have made decisions about taking on apprentices in the Birmingham area only to discover later that the informal rationing system of funds used by the training board has meant that they have not had the financial support which they expected and that this in turn is leading to uncertainty in the employment of young people for training?

Mr. Golding: I understand the disappointment of both the employers and the apprentices concerned, but I wish to make it clear that I referred to the fact that funds were available to the board. The board has the money to deal with this problem and the board has the responsibility in this regard.

Mr. Cope: The board may have the funds in the West Midlands, but what does the Minister intend to do about the muddle in my area whereby employers who were promised by the training board premium grants for apprentices in the Bristol area are receiving them whereas those who were promised them in the Gloucester area are not receiving them?

Mr. Golding: This is a question for the board, but the distinction is that whereas the board solicited apprenticeships throughout the country, it was only in one area that it actually promised them.

Job Saving

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of jobs saved by the Government's employment schemes in the past year to the latest available date.

Mr. Golding: The total number of people assisted by all the employment and training measures is currently about 320,000. In the last 12 months temporary employment subsidy, designed specifically to save jobs, has done so for 185,000 people. It is also estimated that about 118,000 jobs, including 37,700 in the last year, should be safeguarded where assistance has been offered up to 31st January 1978 under Section 7 of the 1972 Industry Act, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Mr. Ashley: Although the present schemes are warmly welcomed, particularly so far as they help young people, does my hon. Friend agree that middle-aged people who are out of work for any period of time can face a lifetime of unemployment? Therefore, will he consider a special scheme to assist middle-aged people as well as continuing the present admirable efforts to help young people?

Mr. Golding: The training opportunities programme is aimed in that direction, and we want to encourage as many people as possible to attend the Hanley skill-centre and other skillcentres throughout the country. The new special temporary employment programme is aimed at the 19-year-old group and the older people, particularly the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Ridsdale: I welcome some of the schemes which have been introduced, but why cannot the Government make it more worth while for some of the young people to join the Armed Services?

Mr. Golding: I do not think that that matter arises from the original Question. I must emphasise that our problem is to make certain that there is regular employment of all sorts for young people.

Mr. Watkinson: I welcome the Government's measures aimed at creating jobs. Has my hon. Friend noticed the report of the Pay Research Unit at Ruskin College, which pointed out that possibly


one-third of a million jobs have been lost through the underspending of planned public expenditure? Does it make sense for his Department to be creating Jobs when other public bodies are losing them?

Mr. Golding: It makes sense for any Government Department to provide opportunities for the unemployed.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the Minister aware that what the Government give with one hand they take away twice with the other, as we have seen with our great coal and steel industries? Is he further aware that the withdrawal of the regional employment premium alone cost 10,000 jobs in Wales?

Mr. Golding: When the regional employment premium was withdrawn, the temporary employment subsidy was continued. In our view, that subsidy has been far more effective in fighting the battle of unemployment than was REP.

Mr. Silvester: Would it not help if we stopped talking about saving jobs? Are not these measures, although useful, merely a means of holding on to jobs which will be lost shortly unless the Government get the economy right?

Mr. Golding: I agree that the Government have to get the economy right, and that is what the Government's industrial strategy is all about, but the Question related to the saving of jobs. If Conservative Members had asked a Question about the creation of jobs, I could have talked in even greater numbers than I am now doing.

Employment Subsidy Schemes

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Employment in view of the development of structural unemployment, what consideration is being given to methods of employment subsidy on a long-term basis.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): For the present, we prefer to keep employment subsidy schemes subject to periodic review as being designed primarily to support jobs during the recession.

Mr. Evans: As well as consideration of the question of faster economic growth, which we hope will be stimulated in next week's Budget, does my hon. Friend

agree that an employment subsidy and the introduction of a phased working week and reduced working hours are complementary in solving the long-term problem of unemployment? Will he examine the proposals advanced by the TUC's economic review for 1978?

Mr. Walker: We shall certainly study the TUC's proposals and the economic review with great care. I hope that my hon. Friend, in rightly expressing concern about the development of structural unemployment, will not overlook the fact that in the past five years the labour force has grown by one million and that during that period half a million extra jobs have been created.

Mr. Powell: Is not the subsidisation of employment on a long-term basis a contradiction in terms?

Mr. Walker: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that successive Governments have been subsidising employment over a long period of time with such measures as, for example, Section 7 of the Industry Act and similar legislation which preceded it.

Birmingham

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the Birmingham travel-to-work area.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): At 9th March, 39,843 people were registered as unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area.

Mr. Rooker: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It shows a reduction in unemployment in Birmingham of about 3,000 in the last three months. Will he tell the House how many jobs in Birmingham at present are being saved by the Government by the use of the very measures that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) wants to stop immediately as false subsidies?

Mr. Grant: Yes. Our special employment measures have helped well over 9,000 people in the Birmingham area and will be further developed by the new youth opportunities programme and the special temporary employment programme. The temporary employment subsidy has helped nearly 5,500 people.


There is clear evidence that the Government have recognised the particular problems of the Birmingham area.

Mr. Eyre: Does the Minister fully realise that a new, frightening unemployment situation has developed in Birmingham particularly affecting the young and those over the age of 50? The recent loss of 600 jobs at the Typhoo Tea factory highlights the contradiction between the Government's regional policy and their inner city area policy. Will the Minister undertake to ensure to review that contradiction and put it right, because it should not be allowed to continue?

Mr. Grant: No, I do not think that there is a contradiction here. I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Government should put right what he terms a contradiction. It would be interesting to know how he suggests that we should put it right and what sort of intervention he is asking for.

Mr. George: Can my hon. Friend estimate the number of jobs saved in Birmingham, Walsall and the West Midlands by the Government's commitment to British Leyland—not those directly employed, but the thousands of people in my constituency who are dependent upon British Leyland?

Mr. Grant: The figures in that respect speak for themselves.

Youth Opportunities Scheme

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the basis for the calculation of £19·50 to be paid weekly free of tax to those taking advantage of the youth opportunities scheme.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that the weekly allowance of £19·50 paid to those taking advantage of the youth opportunities programme was calculated after careful consideration of current levels of supplementary and unemployment benefit, of allowances payable under existing schemes and of normal remuneration levels for young people in employment.

Mr. Miller: Does the Minister really think that a tax-free benefit of that order is the best introduction to working life for young people? Does he understand the feeling of outrage of pensioners receiving

£17·90 a week who have earned and contributed to that?

Mr. Walker: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should be criticising the allowances for being too high. There is a need for a proper balance to ensure that, on the one hand, the allowance is large enough to provide incentive to young people drawing benefits but not so high, on the other hand, that it acts as a disincentive for young people to take up normal employment or to continue or resume full-time education.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend accept that this very welcome measure will be a positive step in finding employment for young people? However, will he be careful to co-ordinate his attitudes with the Department of Education and Science to make sure that amounts of money are available to ensure that people receive adequate training at the same time?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I gave my hon. Friend the assurance that in the development of those measures and in their application we are working in the closest liaison with the Manpower Services Commission and with the Department of Education and Science. I stress that the youth opportunities programme is primarily one of work preparation and work experience and is aimed at providing young people with experience of work and with an understanding of the work environment and is a preparation to help them to enter full-time employment.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister watch the effect of this programme on places in further education? Secondly, is he aware that a young man taking up agriculture is currently on a wage of £25·80, which after deductions leaves him with £21·58 per week? This is £2·08 more than the youth opportunities programme would pay, and the employer would be £3·10 better off for creating a new job than he would be if he paid his part of the contribution himself. Is this not a very bad way to treat an industry?

Mr. Walker: Let me emphasise again that the purpose of the youth opportunities programme is not to provide young people as cheap labour for anyone but to to provide them with work preparation and work experience. Part of the application of the scheme will be


that young people will not be on a sustained task for long periods.
The level of the allowance has been fixed by the Manpower Services Commission on the basis that I have already given to the House, on the assumption that it will be a standard rate and will operate in a way which will not provide incentives for employers or others to enter into competition for those young people.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does my hon. Friend accept that one implication of paying this £19 under the programme, which is very welcome, is that the Government must do something about education maintenance allowances for young people who very often sit at a desk next to some of these youngsters on the youth opportunities programme and who decide to stay in education but receive no maintenance allowance or grant?

Mr. Walker: I understand the strength of feeling about education maintenance allowances, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science rather than for the Department of Employment.

Mr. Madel: As the youth opportunities programme depends on an adequate number of supervisors and instructors to assist in the courses that are offered, can the Minister say what is the current shortage of instructors and supervisors, particularly in skillcentres, and what is being done to overcome this by September, when we are assured that all these schemes will be fully operational?

Mr. Walker: The youth opportunities programme has only just got under way. It is a little early to say what the staffing shortfalls may be. The hon. Gentleman may be confusing with the youth opportunities programme and its staffing needs the undoubted shortages that there are of instructors in the Government's skillcentres. One of the problems is pay. We are anxious about this and are doing what we can to remedy the shortage.

USSR (Trade Unions)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will raise with the International Labour Organisation the question of recognition by the ILO of the Association of Freed Trade Union Workers in the USSR.

Mr. John Grant: I understand that the International Labour Office is already examining the matter in the light of the ILO's constitutional obligations and responsibilities. We await the outcome of that study.

Mr. Blaker: When members of this asociation have been confined to mental hospitals, although they are perfectly sane, simply because they have urged the official trade unions to investigate abuses by the State of labour regulations, is it not time that the ILO should at least investigate the real nature of Soviet trade unions?

Mr. Grant: We certainly would not want to condone the misuse of psychiatric treatment or anything of that kind, because it is clearly an abuse or human rights. We think that we should await the outcome of the initial inquiries by the ILO.

Mr. Heffer: Would my hon. Friend accept that many on the the Labour side of the House are concerned that workers in the Soviet Union who want to create free trade unions should be allowed to do so? On the other hand, is it not equally true that Tory Members in particular have never shown their support for the existence of free trade unions in Spain, Portgual, Greece, Turkey or any other country? Is it not true that they are hypocritical in their attitude and are climbing on to a bandwagon? There is a real problem in which they have never shown an interest before.

Mr. Grant: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. I am not convinced by the record of the Tory Party on the question of free trade unionism in this country.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs he expects to be created in United Kingdom manufacturing industry in the calendar year 1979 and the calendar year 1980.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Government's policies seek to bring about an eventual expansion of jobs sufficient to reduce unemployment and meet the needs of the extra workers expected to join the labour force over the next few years.


When they will succeed depends on a variety of factors only partly within Government control, and I therefore see little point in trying to produce estimates of this kind.

Mr. Renton: Is it not the case that one such estimate has already been produced? Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently state that he saw 2 million new jobs being created over the next few years as a result of the Government's industrial strategy? Does the Minister agree with that or does he think that that forecast is unrealistic and crude election-mongering, as was the Chancellor's statement during the October 1974 General Election about an 8·4 per cent, rate of inflation?

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman ought to read what the Chancellor said and not what the newspapers suggested he might have said. I dealt with this same point fully on 31st January in reply to a Question from the hon. Gentleman. I will refresh his memory as to what the Chancellor said. I quoted then what the Chancellor had said in Glasgow on 27th January. He was referring to the work of the 40 sector working parties and their analysis of the problems. He said:
Although"—

Mr. Renton: Reading.

Mr. Harold Walker: Of course I am reading. I am quoting the Chancellor's speech to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is all right as long as the Minister does not read the whole speech. Please keep it as brief as possible.

Mr. Harold Walker: I shall be as brief as I can, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor said:
Although in these sectors employment overall is not likely to increase dramatically from such improvements in productivity, the balance of payments benefit they generate should enable the Government to run the economy at a level of demand sufficient to produce between ½ million and 1 million additional jobs".

Mr. Terry Walker: Can my hon. Friend tell us about one matter that is vital to the manufacturing industry, namely, the efforts being made to get more apprentices, especially in the engineering and tool-making industries,

because a lack of apprentices would be a big drawback to the expansion of manufacturing industry later?

Mr. Harold Walker: My hon. Friend and the House will be pleased to know that we have been able to sustain the number of young people in apprenticeships in the engineering industry over the last three years and that there are now more people in such apprenticeships than when we came to office in 1974 and compared with most of the period when the Conservatives were in power. This is almost entirely due to the support given by the Government to the Engineering Industry Training Board.

Mr. Hayhoe: Do the Government still believe that between 500,000 and 1 million new jobs can be created in the next few years, and when do they think that a start will be made on their creation?

Mr. Harold Walker: I have quoted to the House the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A start has been made. The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but the current level of unemployment is below that officially recorded in March 1972, when it was 1½ million. There are also 500,000 more people in employment now than there were five years ago.

North-West Region

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the North-West; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Golding: At 9th March, 205,428 people were registered as unemployed in the North-West Region. We estimate that our special measures have so far helped over 164,000 people in the North-West. It is hoped that full advantage will be taken of the extension of the small firms employment subsidy and the job release scheme, and that full support will be given by trade unions and employers to the special temporary employment programme and the youth opportunities programme.

Mr. Silvester: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are more school leavers unemployed in the North-West than in any other region except Scotland? What do the Government propose to do about it?

Mr. Golding: We have imposed an obligation on the Manpower Services Commission to make sure that every youngster who left school this Easter or who leaves in the summer is given an opportunity by next Easter.

Mr. John Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures he has given are alarming? Does he not feel that the time has come when special development area status should be extended to more areas in the North-West than enjoy it at present?

Mr. Golding: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. We certainly regard the figures as alarming, and that is why we have taken measures that are particularly helpful to the North-West, such as the new Multi-Fibre Arrangement, the short-time working scheme and the successful renegotiation of the temporary employment subsidy with the Common Market.

Mr. Arnold: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the appalling unemployment situation in the North-West has become much worse as a result of the declining trend and low absolute value of renewed capital investment relative to every other region in the United Kingdom? How will the policies to which he has referred bring about a situation where this will be changed?

Mr. Golding: The relationship between investment and employment is very complex, as those in the North-West can confirm. Our belief is that the £400 million that has been given to the North-West in regional financial assistance over the past five years has been very helpful.

Redundancies (Merseyside and Kirkby)

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies were reported in his Department in the last three months in (a) Merseyside and (b) Kirkby.

Mr. Golding: In the three months to 28th February 1978, 126 proposed redundancies were notified on Merseyside under Section 100 of the Employment Protection Act covering 10,477 employees; six of the notifications were in Kirkby, covering 1,534 employees. We expect that many of the notifications will be withdrawn.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend accept that the redundancies that have been announced in Kirkby and on Merseyside will have a terrible effect on the job opportunities in the area and that these are precisely die sort of jobs that we cannot afford to lose on Merseyside? Can he give an assurance that the Government will take all possible steps to prevent these redundancies occurring and go further and accept that, if we are adequately to deal with the problems of areas such as Merseyside, a totally new initiative on regional policy is called for?

Mr. Golding: Great attention must be paid by the Government to Merseyside, because there is a need to recreate confidence there and there is also an important job to do in creating confidence in Merseyside among those outside Merseyside.

Mr. Heffer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that there should be a co-ordination of various Government Departments in relation to Merseyside? Can he indicate whether the discussions that I and my hon. Friends from Merseyside have had with the Secretary of State for Industry are bearing fruit in relation to that co-ordination? Can we have positive proposals to deal with the serious situation that has developed in the last month or so?

Mr. Golding: There is very close consultation, particularly on the Liverpool partnership committee, and I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that Departments will combine to deal with the current dreadful problem on Merseyside.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Social Services.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on 16th March.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that, as a result of a recent speech by the former Secretary of State for Social Services, there is now a conflict


of evidence between her, the present Secretary of State and Lady Falkender about the social security files of Mr. Norman Scott and whether they were destroyed or transferred to 10 Downing Street, and, if so, for what purpose? Does not this leave the present Secretary of State in an unsatisfactory position? How does the Prime Minister propose that the matter should be cleared up?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was rising to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for not following up the fact that he had alleged that my right hon. Friend had intervened improperly to waive proceedings against a private individual. I am surprised that he has not seen fit to withdraw that allegation, which was repeated by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) after my right hon. Friend had given his denial. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington also owes my right hon. Friend an apology.
As to the particular circumstances, I have nothing to inquire into further. With these continuing questions, I am wondering whether the hon. Member for Black-pool, South (Mr. Blaker) is more concerned with governmental proprieties or with pursuing a personal vendetta against the former Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).

Mr. Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my wife will be delighted that he is not going to dismiss the Secretary of State for Social Services, because from today, along with a few million other women, she will be getting £2·50 a week in child benefit and she thinks that the Secretary of State is doing a marvellous job?

The Prime Minister: It is true that there is a substantial increase in child benefit payable from this week. I do not want to disillusion my hon. Friend's wife, but the sum she will get will be not £2·50 but £2·30 a week. However, I hope that this will not destroy her confidence in the Secretary of State.

Sir J. Eden: Is there not another reason for sacking the Secretary of State? Does the Prime Minister have any idea how long it takes to get a consultant in

the National Health Service? Is he aware that even in urgent cases in the Bournemouth area it can sometimes take 30 weeks or more? Does he care about this scandalous situation, and, if so, what is he going to do about it?

The Prime Minister: The situation in the Health Service is not as satisfactory as I should like. There are a great many people, more than 500,000, waiting for treatment, and that number has persisted, although it is rather higher now, ever since the formation of the NHS. We should improve the position as quickly as we can. But I find it odd that the Conservative Party should propose additional expenditure when all that its Members consistently do is to tell us that we should reduce public expenditure.

Mr. Dalyell: Far from dismissing the Secretary of State, will my right hon. Friend ask him to prepare legislation in the light of our debate on 3rd March to create conditions in which people can get kidneys for transplant?

The Prime Minister: I note my hon. Friend's views. I know of his concern and I am aware of his Bill. However, I am told that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes to launch a new campaign tomorrow, which I hope will be taken seriously by the House and by others, to ensure that the transfer of kidneys after death can be made easier and to ensure that as many as possible follow the proposal that is made so that other sufferers may take advantage.

Mr. Blaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for 10 minutes until the end of Question Time.

Mr. Blaker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, Mr. Speaker, I intend to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Later—

Mr. Blaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister will check the record, I believe he will find that I did not make the statement about the Secretary of State for Social Services which he attributed to me.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: I am ready to do so. But I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who was associated with the dirty tricks brigade on this occasion, will make his apology, because I know that he said it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Later—

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We realise that the Prime Minister does not like persistent questioning, and we also realise that if the Secretary of State for Social Services had made a statement, for which some of us have been asking, these allegations would not have arisen.
May I reply to the Prime Minister's insult—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—by asking him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to let me have a letter containing his allegations, and I shall deal with them?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 4th April.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Adley: When the right hon. Gentleman meets his ministerial colleagues, will he invite a representative from the TUC to join the meeting and thereafter to issue a statement deploring that any trade union should expel a member from a trade union merely on behalf of his political views or his membership of a political party, regardless of how obnoxious that party may appear to be? Does he realise that what the NUR did over the weekend could have serious complications if, for example, the National Union of Journalists were to do the same thing, resulting in some form of political censorship?

The Prime Minister: On the substantive question, I have learned from long

experience not to comment at the Dispatch Box on the actions of particular unions or other bodies until I am in full possession of the facts. Therefore, I make no comment on the National Union of Railway-men. As regards the general proposition, I make clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I would deplore utterly, and would not find it at all acceptable, that people should be dismissed from their employment because of their political views, however objectionable they may be. However, there are some limitations that have to be imposed—for example, in the case of employees in the Crown Service, and maybe in the police. Generally speaking, what I have said as regards the general proposition should be the rule, and I hope that everybody will accept that.

Mr. Litterick: As my right hon. Friend would appear to be having a quiet day, will he take time out to confirm or deny the factual content in the extraordinary broadcast made by Independent Television News last night to the effect that it is now Her Majesty's Government's policy to deploy the neutron bomb on British territory?

The Prime Minister: It may seem like a quiet day, but it is rather like the swan which looks calm on top but is paddling like hell underneath. Of course, I do not accept any responsibility for what appears in ITV news reports, on the BBC or in any of the newspapers. I am tempted to add "Thank heavens".
I have already said to the House that as regards the neutron bomb it is a matter of weighing the substantial political disadvantages against whatever military advantage may be presumed to exist. I had general discussions with President Carter last week about the issue of disarmament, and I would be glad if my hon. Friend did not press me any further today on these matters.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister explain why, after four years of Labour Government, the level of unemployment in this country is now worse than in any of our major industrial competitors?

The Prime Minister: The last part of the right hon. Lady's question is not true, as I think she will realise when she


reads the figures. However, unemployment is far too high in this country, as it is throughout the Western industrialised world. It is my intention, with, I hope, the help of others in other countries, to ensure that there is a revival of world trade so that we can get our own people back to work. I add that as a result of the sacrifices made by the British people over the past two or three years it could be that next week's Budget will provide a stimulus, too.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does not the Prime Minister know that the figures I have given are true according to the Secretary of State for Employment and that the level of unemployment in this country is now worse than in that of any of our main industrial competitors by a quite considerable margin? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his policies have led to that result?

The Prime Minister: If I look at the figures that I happen to have in front of me, I see that the position in Canada is much worse. I take it that that would be a major competitor. I see that the position in Italy is much worse. I take it that that would be a major competitor. [An HON MEMBER: "What about Nicaragua?"] From the reaction of the Opposition, it would seem that major competitors are only those that the Opposition select. However, I hope that the Opposition will accept that we are facing a world recession and that such a recession demands collective international action if it is to be overcome. It is to that that we should be bending our efforts, together with the stimulus that we ourselves can give as a result of the success of the Government's policies on inflation during the past 12 months.

Mrs. Thatcher: rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows—I have said this before—that the Leader of the Opposition may take this course, which is a long-established custom in this House.

Mrs. Thatcher: According to a reply from the Secretary of State for Employment on 30th January, on a comparable basis the level of unemployment in Italy was 3·3 per cent, while in Great Britain it was 7·2 per cent. We are suffering

from the same world recession. The right hon. Gentleman's Government are doing worse than other nations, with the single exception of Canada, which has less than half the population of Great Britain. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that result?

The Prime Minister: I can give the right hon. Lady the explanation, as I have done on many occasions in the House, but I cannot make her accept it. That is something that will have to be judged in due course. However, generally speaking, the country understands that, whatever may be said—I shall not rehearse the arguments against the Opposition's monetary policies in 1973 and 1974, which are well known, and if I may say so, better deployed at the hustings than in the House—about the Opposition's policies, they led in Government to substantial inflation during the following years which the present Government are now succeeding in overcoming. From that position, we can build our employment again. I hope that in due course the Opposition will accept that as being the accurate analysis.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that when the Leader of the Opposition quotes the unemployment figures of our European competitors she forgets that unemployment in Germany is lower than in Great Britain because Germany has sent back 1 million migrant workers? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, notwithstanding what the right hon. Lady may do if she is given a chance, he will not solve our unemployment problem in that fashion?

The Prime Minister: It is true that the German unemployment figure, which is now over 1 million, has been kept substantially lower than it would otherwise have been because migrant workers have been admitted on only a temporary basis. As I understand it, it is not the policy of any of the major parties in this country to do that, although there are some who hold the view that migrant workers should be returned. Generally speaking, both major parties are agreed on that issue. I emphasise that the one thing we must not do is create unnecessary uncertainties in people's minds.
As to the general level of unemployment, I have said before in the House, and I repeat, that those who believe in a


market economy should note that, whereas Britain's unemployment has increased twofold since 1973, German unemployment has increased fourfold since 1973.

Mr. Emery: Will the Prime Minister, on a House of Commons matter, insist with his Secretaries of State in future that any major new announcement on public spending, such as the £450 million to British Leyland this year, should be announced at the Dispatch Box on the Floor of the House so that the Minister may defend his statement and Members of Parliament may have their traditional right of cross-questioning such public spending? Does he accept that to make such an announcement by slipping it in through the back door of a Written Answer is really cheating and ignoring the House and ought to be condemned?

The Prime Minister: I think that whether a statement should be made at the Dispatch Box or answered by a Written Question is a matter for judgment on every occasion. But on this particular occasion as, I should hope, the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue about which he is speaking—Leyland—will be debated in the House. That will be his opportunity to express his view and, if the Opposition so wish, to vote against it and so reduce the West Midlands to an industrial wasteland.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to hold up the business of the House, but you will recall that before the recess a number of my hon. Friends—I personally did not raise the matter on that occasion, although I agreed with them—pointed out that, during the brief quarter of an hour that the Prime Minister was answering Questions, the Leader of the Opposition took not just one, two or three questions, but on occasion went beyond that. I understand that at the time you assured the House that there was nothing that we could do about it, except to encourage the Members concerned to be circumspect about this matter.
May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, that you go beyond that—[Interruption.] Mr.

Speaker happens to be the Chairman as well as the Speaker.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, that you go beyond that and have discussions with the Front Bench concerned, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have further Questions should be allowed to ask those Questions and supplementary questions rather than have the right hon. Lady monopolising the whole of the quarter of an hour, which can get worse because we are now in fact on radio?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer that point of order first.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is no further point of order on that matter. It has been the custom, ever since I have been in the House, that the Leader of the Opposition will from time to time come back on Questions at least three times. Hon. Members have it within their own memories, and I certainly—

Mr. Faulds: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no further point of order on that matter.

Mr. Faulds: But there is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: There is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: There is an Early-Day Motion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must do the same as I do and count to ten.

Mr. Faulds: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the microphones are now off, and since my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) raised the point that I first raised on the Floor of the House, and since there is already on the Order Paper an Early-Day Motion standing in my name and the names of about 60 or 70 other hon. Members criticising the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's Question Time, may I strongly endorse the argument advanced by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are two errors there. Number one is that, although Question Time was being broadcast live, the proceedings are still being recorded. That was the first mistake.
Number two is that we are not now going to have debates about the Leader of the Opposition and her time at Question Time.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the fact that we hear a great deal more from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) than from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Could we not, in recording policy, reverse that trend?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it may seem so to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Lady has nothing to say. That is the trouble with her.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Although I have Question No. 3 to the Prime Minister, unlike my colleagues, I am not objecting to the frequent interventions by the Leader of the Opposition. I feel that she contributes to the Labour movement and to this side of the House every time she appears at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the point of order was.

ROADS (POLICY)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's policy for the trunk road and motorway system.
The transport policy White Paper published last June outlined a new approach to the planning and improvement of the national road network. In the spirit of this approach I have now carried out a review of the objectives and methods of the trunk road programme in England and completed the first stage of a reassessment of all the schemes in it The results are brought together in the White Paper "Policy for Roads: England 1978"

which I have today presented to Parliament.
My Department, jointly with the Department of the Environment, has also been reviewing the procedures for public inquiries into trunk road schemes. We have been guided by the Council on Tribunals, with which we have worked closely. The Government's intentions are set out in the White Paper "Report on the Review of Highway Inquiry Procedures" which I have today presented jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Copies of both White Papers have been available in the Vote Office since 3 o'clock.
To devise and implement the right policy for roads presents many problems and dilemmas. Within the framework of the national transport policy, we need a road system that will support our major national objectives—the industrial strategy, regional development and the regeneration of inner city areas—as well as relieve the serious local problems caused by traffic. The inter-urban road system has been transformed over the last 15 to 20 years but many deficiencies remain. The routes to the major ports are not yet complete. There is an urgent need for an orbital route round London. Certain of the assisted areas still lack adequate communications, and many bypasses are required. Hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House continue to urge priority for new roads to serve their constituencies.
Yet people are now less inclined to take for granted the assumptions on which road planning has proceeded in the past—for example, about future levels of traffic. They are less willing to accept the lengthy disruption caused by major construction projects. They are alert to the possibly damaging consequences, as they see it, of major new roads for the areas in which they live. As a result, there has been some dissatisfaction with the way that my Department and its predecessors have explained their proposals and apparently made their decisions. Public inquiries have on occasions been disrupted.
I shall not take up the time of the House by detailing all the changes which I propose. But the main elements of the new approach are these. First, in place


of a predetermined strategic network, our approach will be selective. Within the planned level of investment on trunk roads and motorways of about £300 million, there will be a more rigorous approach to priorities, with emphasis on vital industrial routes, but also increasingly on schemes with high environmental benefits.
Secondly, there will be more flexibility in applying design standards in the light of greater uncertainty about future traffic levels and the cost and supply of oil. Greater flexibility also reflects my concern that roads should be fitted into the environment in a discriminating way.
Thirdly, in the appraisal of road schemes my Department will apply a comprehensive framework for decision, as recommended by the Leitch Committee, whose report was published in January. It will set out the range of factors that need to be taken into account—economic, social and environmental: those that can be quantified and those that cannot. In this way, each can be given its full weight, and a balanced judgment can be made.
Fourthly, there will be a greater openness at the various stages of planning, from public consultation to the inquiry. In the arrangements for inquiries, my Department will secure that realistic alternatives are genuinely explored. It will make available information covering the range of factors on which road proposals are based and decisions reached so that, as far as possible, there can be equality of information for all those concerned.
Finally, we need to put beyond doubt the impartiality of inspectors who are appointed to conduct trunk road and motorway inquiries. With the approval of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will, in future, in exercising our statutory obligations, ask my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, to nominate a particular individual considered by him to be suitable for a particular inquiry.
On this basis, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can have a road programme that meets the country's needs and commands a very wide measure of approval. Where there are conflicts of interest, they can be resolved openly and fairly. "Policy

for Roads: England 1978" is the first of a new series of annual policy statements which will enable the House, if it chooses, to discuss the principles underlying the decisions of Ministers. I shall also welcome wider public discussion of these important issues.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The House will need time to consider these reports. We welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that there will be a debate on them. May I put three short questions to the Secretary of State? First, is he aware that in many areas of the country there is an urgent need for bypasses and relief roads to keep traffic away from residential areas? Do the Government intend to give priority here?
Secondly, does the Secretary of State share the view of many local authorities that road maintenance is deteriorating to a potentially dangerous level? Does he not agree that it is important that existing roads do not fall into disrepair? Thirdly, does he agree that now the inquiry procedure is being further improved—and we welcome this improvement—there can be absolutely no justification for the disruption of public inquiries? Will he make it absolutely clear that the Department will not be influenced in any way by such strong-arm tactics in the future?

Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to the hon. Member. The question of a debate is not a matter for me. Certainly I and my colleagues would welcome a debate on these important issues as soon as time can be found.
The hon. Member raised three issues. He will find in both of the White Papers, particularly in the one dealing with the road programme, a clear indication that we shall be giving priority to relief roads and bypasses. I agree that there is a great demand for these and they often have considerable environmental advantages. On the question of road maintenance, I am aware that there is a view held in some parts of the country that irrespective of the severe weather that we have been having there has been some deterioration. I have been trying to find a means of evaluating the alternative trends and a basis on which decisions can be made. This is not easy. However, if I were satisfied that maintenance had been reduced too far I should be prepared to consider switching expenditure.
I agree that there is no case at all for disrupting highway inquiries. I hope that all those who are not against building any roads at any time on principle but who believe that roads should be carefully chosen and fitted into the environment will now feel that the procedures set out in the White Paper will provide an adequate basis for them to be heard. My Department will resist any suggestion that disruptive behaviour at inquiries will determine the final outcome.

Mr. John Ellis: Is there anything in the White Paper that deals with a policy on toll bridges? Is my right hon. Friend aware that although some of us are opposed to toll bridges we appreciate that there is a problem with the Humber Bridge for example? We appreciate that bridges have to be financed by tolls but there is a possibility that they will not be used if the level of toll is too high. Is he aware that there is a likelihood of a continuing financial crisis for the Humber Bridge because the revenue is not sufficient to meet the cost of servicing, the capital and keeping it in repair? If there is nothing in the White Paper on this subject, will my right hon. Friend take this problem on board?

Mr. Rodgers: I shall take the problem on board. There is nothing in the White Paper about this matter. I know my hon. Friend's concern about the Humber Bridge, which he has expressed frequently in the House. It is not only the Humber Bridge that is involved; there are other toll facilities. There would be a substantial cost and we should have to find the money from elsewhere to remove the tolls on existing tunnels and bridges and to pay off the capital debt.

Sir David Renton: I accept the need for more roads, but is the Secretary of State aware that there has been a tendency up to now to disregard the need to conserve farm land? Can he give the House some idea of the number of thousands of acres of farm land that will go out of production as a result of his White Paper? What steps will be taken to conserve farm land as far as possible in the future?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman the number of acres of farm land that might go out of use as a result of the White Paper. I

can say only that there will be fewer than if the former road programme had been maintained at its then volume. He should feel that the procedures that we have outlined in the second White Paper will ensure that, if there is any doubt about this, all those with a legitimate objection, on the grounds that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, will be heard and will have their views taken into account.

Mr. Leadbitter: The White Paper at least has the right kind of objective for dealing with the method of stopping the disruption of public inquiries. My right hon. Friend has stated that one of the purposes is to produce into the environment a discriminatory process in order to arrive at balanced judgments. Perhaps the time has come for the Government to take a more positive role in encouraging the proper representation of objections in such a way that disruptions are diminished. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have a part to play both in the conservation of land and in meeting the objections of property owners to Government roads schemes? The Government also have a duty to provide proper legal procedures. Does he not agree that this would meet the objective that he has in mind?

Mr. Rodgers: If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, I can give him that assurance. It is very important, as he says, that all those who have a legitimate objection and want to be heard should now be aware that they can be heard and that from now on our procedures from the beginning until construction starts are procedures in which everyone can participate if he has a direct interest or a legitimate point of view to express.

Mr. Pardoe: Does the Minister accept that there has been some waste of public expenditure on the quality of the bypasses built and planned by the last Conservative Government, particularly in the West Country? Will he confirm that the bypass that is now to be built at Okehampton will not be the same excessive standard as those built in parts of my constituency elsewhere in the West Country?

Mr. Rodgers: I entirely agree with the hon. Member. For reasons that the House can understand, a lot of road building was excessively ambitious at the


time. It is only fair to say, however, that while the hon. Member urges me to downgrade the standards of roads, other right hon. and hon. Members will be urging me to do precisely the opposite. I shall have to judge this as best I can in individual cases as they arise.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Let me inform the House that since we have business governed by a timetable motion today and since there is also a Ten-Minute Bill, I propose to allow questions on the statement until 4 o'clock. The number of hon. Members who will be called will depend on how brief the questions are.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for the welcome statement he has made. Will he confirm that the fact that the Lord Chancellor is to be consulted does not necessarily mean that a legal person—a barrister or a solicitor—will be appointed, but that the object of the exercise is to secure the independence of the person so appointed, not his professional qualifications? It is not clear from what my right hon. Friend said that Wales is affected in whole or in part by this statement. Will he confirm that it applies to the Principality?

Mr. Rodgers: I can confirm my right hon. Friend's point about the second White Paper referring to highway inquiries. On the procedural point, he is also correct. The reason that the Lord Chancellor is to choose people for these inquiries in future is to remove all reasonable doubt about questions of impartiality. There is no reason why he should choose lawyers for the task.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no new procedures will apply to the M25 routes which have already been cleared, particularly that affecting the constituency of Chingford between the A10 and the M11? Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with one point that affects me personally, as opposed to my constituents? Is his mind still firmly made up that the M41 bypass of Berk-hamsted is definitely out and that a dual-purpose dual carriageway road will be built?

Mr. Rodgers: The new procedures set out today will apply as soon as possible, but obviously where decisions have been

made by Ministers and where roads have gone out to tender they will proceed. Schemes still at some stage of preparation will be subject to review. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, he has correctly stated the position, but I shall confirm that to him. One of the elements in our whole new approach is that we shall be looking at priorities and standards all the time. We shall feel the need for flexibility both up and down when we consider the growth of traffic, environmental factors and the other claims on resources.

Mr. Rossi: May I ask whether, notwithstanding the abandonment of the Archway Road improvement scheme in the face of what the Minister termed organised disruption, the fact that the scheme appears likely to start, according to Table C in the White Paper, in the period 1981–83, means that he still regards the improvement as important within the programme? If so, when does he intend to reopen the matter under the new procedures announced today?

Mr. Rodgers: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am deeply concerned about the problems which remain in the Archway Road and which he has raised in this House on many occasions. My decision to abandon the current inquiry was made not on grounds of environmental problems there but on other grounds. As the hon. Gentleman said, the White Paper indicates that decisions are still to be made about how that improvement will take place. I shall be proceeding with consultations just as soon as I can because I think those who live on that road deserve relief when it can be achieved.

Mr. Urwin: I give a broad welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement on the review of highway inquiry procedures, but is he aware that there will be some disappointment that he has not referred in his statement to the underspending, estimated in the region of £160 million, by his Department on roads over the last two years? Does he intend to do anything to redeem that amount of money in the best interests of improving communications in the Northern Region to make an impact on high unemployment in the construction industry?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend knows very well that there are always very grave


problems in judging exactly when construction work will be completed. Completion is very much affected by the weather and other factors which cannot be forecast far ahead. He mentioned a figure for underspend which covers a period of two years. It covers not only my responsibilities but those of local authorities over whom I have no control. I hope, however, that we shall spend the whole of the £300 million while at the same time avoiding the sort of overspend which would also be unacceptable to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a welcome, albeit a rueful one, for the clear statement in paragraph 102 that Tamworth is an expanding town with severe traffic problems? Does he agree that there is a special obligation on the Government to help those authorities such as Tamworth that have helped to solve other people's environmental programmes by taking on massive housing problems? Does he not agree that the Government have a special responsibility to solve the environmental problems of such towns with a proper road network?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, and in reaching our decisions and making judgments on priorities that is something that we shall certainly take into account. I should make clear, however, that the White Paper refers to my responsibilities as Secretary of State, and a substantial part of the road programme is the direct responsibility of local authorities. I cannot determine what their priorities should be or necessarily the speed at which they move.

Mr, Fry: Does the Secretary of State accept that there will be a warm welcome for the fact that Parliament can now approve the overall policy for roads, thus removing that factor from the scope of individual highway inquiries? Does he realise that the new procedures laid down for these inquiries will tend to make them last rather longer? Will he therefore look, as a matter of urgency, at the route for the A1-M1 link, which is part of the vital Midlands-East Coast ports connection?

Mr. Rodgers: It is desirable that Parliament should take these White Papers seriously, because, as the hon.

Gentleman implies, some of the criticism has been that the House has been too ready to allow these decisions to be made by Ministers without ever having debated and challenged them. I am happy to have my decisions debated and challenged in the House, if that will increase public confidence in the awareness of these issues and of what the cost will be. I give the hon. Member the undertaking that he seeks in the second part of his question.

Mr. Greville Janner: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on saying that he is to place emphasis on schemes of high environmental benefit? Does the converse apply—that he will try to keep away from those schemes that are likely to create social and environmental chaos, such as the projected schemes which may cut in half some of the great estates in Leicester, dividing up the communities in them?

Mr. Rodgers: I doubt whether those roads are my personal responsibility. Rather they would be the responsibility of the county council. However, my hon. and learned Friend mentions an important point. Environment cuts both ways. Sometimes a road will improve the environment, but sometimes it will damage it. We must be in favour of the first while doing our best to avoid the second either in rural or urban areas.

Mr. Temple Morris: Is the Minister aware that few things have suffered more from cut-backs in Government expenditure than bypass schemes for our ancient towns and villages? The Secretary of State has mentioned a welcome greater priority, as I understood what he said, in this regard. Will he go into more detail about that priority? Are we dealing with aspirations and good intentions of the Department of Transport, or is this a definitive Government commitment backed by the necessary expenditure?

Mr. Rodgers: It is certainly a definite Government commitment backed in my programme by the necessary expenditure. I make the point clear, however, that the programme of local roads is the responsibility of county councils, and although I hope that they will act in the spirit of both of these White Papers, ultimately that is a matter for them, not for me.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.

Mr. Sydney Irving: Will my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most serious deficiencies, perhaps in the whole of our road system, is the failure to provide an adequate road out of London to the South-East, to Kent and the Continent? As this has been due, in part, to prolonged consultative procedures, does he expect that in the special situation of London his new policies will expedite this project?

Mr. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend puts his finger on a problem which I think the White Paper acknowledges—that the more that people want to be consulted and are consulted, the longer the procedures are likely to be. I have certainly been very concerned that in making consultation more effective and in satisfying demand for it we do not make the whole process much too long. I do not think that I can give an undertaking in quite the terms that my right hon. Friend suggests, for that very reason. But, in so far as it is within my control, yes, I shall try to expedite the roads that he has mentioned.

Mr. David Price: Would the House be correct in interpreting the right hon. Gentleman's statement as meaning that, whatever decisions are made for the future, he will press ahead with and complete the existing published motorway programme, especially to the ports? If that is correct, will he say when he will announce a decision on the missing link of the M27 around Southampton?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I think that the hon. Gentleman slightly misinterprets the purpose of the White Paper. It does not simply confirm the existing programme, such as it is. It takes a new look at the programme as it was and sets out in detail, in the appendices to the White Paper, the priority that we are now giving to individual schemes. But I know of the hon. Gentleman's particular concern, and if he is not satisfied by what he finds in the White Paper, I shall certainly write to him.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (BROADCASTING)

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have always been opposed to the intrusion of microphones and television cameras into this House because of the effect that they would have on the behaviour of Members—an argument which, I think, has been proved this last couple of days.
But the House having accepted this misjudgment—in my view—my understanding was that the hour to be broadcast would be the hour of Questions. This afternoon I got up in what I thought was blank time, because I thought that the microphones were off, to find that the things—to judge by your comment, Mr. Speaker—were still on. If these things are to be on for points of order following Questions, we shall have even grosser abuses of this new-fangled intervention than we have had before. I shall not make comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) getting in on my Early-Day Motion.
However, may we have a clear understanding from you, Mr. Speaker, when these things go off and how we are to know that they are off? Is it the hour of Question Time, and that is all, or will it extend into points of order as long as people want to get in on the act?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important question. First of all, I should say to him and to the House that the microphones are live as long as we are sitting. Selections out of the contributions made to the House are edited and broadcast in the half-hour at the end of the day and early in the morning, so that anything that is said during our day's labours may well be repeated in a broadcast.
Secondly, let me say that no one is more conscious than I am that there is a danger of points of order that are not points of order being raised in the knowledge that we are on the air. It would not be anything new, and not a new experience for me, to have points of order that are not points of order. But I earnestly hope that it will not be exploited.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. That does not quite


answer my point. As far as I understand it, we are going out live for the hour of Questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We were going out live for the hour of Questions.

Mr. Speaker: May I—I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He was addressing the House. Perhaps I may say to the hon. Gentleman that Prime Minister's Questions were going out live. Yesterday, understandably enough, Welsh Questions went out live. But I do not believe that every Question Time will automatically be going out live. It is a half-hour summary of the day's proceedings, with the exception of Prime Minister's Questions.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you reprimanded me—if I may use such a gross exaggeration to describe your kindness to me—my understanding was that what I was then trying to say was going out live. Am I right in that supposition? Was it still live after Prime Minister's Question Time, or had it finished with Prime Minister's Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: Obviously there is a misunderstanding between us. What I sought to indicate to the hon. Gentleman was that it could be broadcast tonight because the microphones are live and active as long as we are here.

Mr. Faulds: You were, Mr. Speaker, unusually inaccurate.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: Unusually.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I accept that from the hon. Gentleman, whose heart is better than his voice.

Mr. Heffer: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most sorry to have to raise this matter, but my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) referred to me and I feel it absolutely essential to point out to my hon. Friend that I come into this Chamber for practically every Question Time, whether or not we are on radio, and it is not a unique experience, as you, Mr. Speaker, will know, as will previous Speakers, for me to raise a matter on a point of order if I feel that the orders or procedure of the House are not actually

being adhered to or that there is an abuse of the procedures of the House. I make the point only because my hon. Friend would understand these matters better, perhaps, if he came here more often and put in more time in the Chamber, as some of us do.

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to comment on the latter part—

Mr. Faulds: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: No, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue the matter.

Mr. Faulds: That was cheap and snide. Typical.

Mr. Heffer: Damned cheek!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: The man proves himself every time he opens his mouth. Snide.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Ordered,
That the Eggs Authority (Rates of Levy) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978, No. 389) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

INNER CITY (DISPOSAL OF VACANT PUBLIC LAND)

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it compulsory for local authorities, nationalised industries, other public bodies and statutory undertakings to dispose of vacant land in their ownership in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
The aim of the Bill is to compel those local authorities guilty of land hoarding either genuinely to develop vacant land in their possession within a limited period or to put it on the open market by way of public auction so that others can do just that.
The scale of land hoarding by local authorities and nationalised industries is not fully known. Suffice it to say that


250,000 acres of prime land, mostly in the city centres, lie dormant. There are over 16,000 acres of derelict or vacant land in London. There are over 2,000 vacant acres in Liverpool and 1,100 in Birmingham. In Liverpool 60 per cent, of the vacant land in the inner city belongs to the local authority, and a further 20 per cent, is in the ownership of British Rail, the water authority or other public undertakings. Much of this vacant land has come about as a result of massive demolition programmes and the failure of the public authorities to rebuild on it.
The consequences of this land remaining dormant are far-reaching. It creates an artificial demand for what is left in the inner city. It sends land prices soaring, and rents with them.
Secondly, as a consequence, new factories and offices are preferred to be built on the green field sites on the edge of the city, where land is cheaper.
Thirdly, the failure to create jobs or to provide homes in the inner city results in a mass exodus of population. Between 1966 and 1976, Liverpool lost 22 per cent, of its population—150,000 people; Manchester lost 18 per cent.—110,000 people; and Birmingham lost 8 per cent.—85,000 people.
Fourthly, by reducing the rate base, the city councils have inadequate funds to provide services for the businesses that remain. The small firm is, therefore, penalised by massive commercial rate demands, and often loading on top of it for refuse collection.
Fifthly, inadequate rate income in the inner areas means that domestic ratepayers in the middle and outer bands of our cities are increasingly subsidising the provision of services in the city centres. If wealth is to be created in our cities, a prerequisite is that the dormant land there must be used to the full. So long as it lies idle, it attracts an artificial value which, as it continues to rise, makes it less and less possible, for anyone to buy.
The Bill would therefore force public authorities to make up their minds. Either they can develop their land and build homes and factories on it, creating new jobs and providing accommodation to tempt back skilled workers who left many years ago, or, if they prefer not to develop the land themselves, it will automatically be auctioned at the market value to the highest bidder and with a covenant that the buyer must develop it within a limited period.
If vacant land remains tied up with public authorities, our cities must continue to die. Small businesses will continue to be driven out and the domestic ratepayer will get less and less value for his money.
The nation's attention is focused on the revival of our cities, yet without the release of dormant land there can be no such revival. It is the cornerstone of our return to prosperity, but there is no hint of such a plan in the current Government legislative programme. That is why I seek leave to introduce this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Reginald Eyre, Mr. Marcus Fox, Mr. Arthur Jones, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Michael Neubert, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Timothy Raison, Mr. Fred Silvester and Sir George Young.

INNER CITY (DISPOSAL OF VACANT PUBLIC LAND)

Mr. Anthony Steen accordingly presented a Bill to make it compulsory for local authorities, nationalised industries, other public bodies and statutory undertakings to dispose of vacant land in their ownership in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12th May and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

Orders of the Day — WALES BILL

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th March.]

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

Clause 35

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO PREVENT OR REQUIRE ACTION

Amendment No. 229 proposed [8th March]: in page 12, line 42, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'and' in line 1 on page 13.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made:

4.12 p.m.

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): I remind the Committee that we are discussing at the same time the following amendments:
No. 230, in page 13, line 4, at end add—
'( ) A direction under subsection (1) of this section shall be given if the House of Commons by resolution so requires, and any direction so required—

(a) shall, as regards its terms and the time at which it takes effect and otherwise, be in conformity with the resolution requiring it, and
(b) shall, for the purposes of subsection (6) of this section, be deemed to have been approved by resolution of the House of Commons.

( ) In the case of any direction under subsection (2) of this section that action shall not be taken, the Assembly or the Attorney-General or any other person, may, within the period of 28 days beginning on the date on which the direction is given, institute proceedings for the determination of the question whether the action proposed to be taken would be incompatible with any of the obligations referred to in paragraph (a) of the said subsection (2); and, if any such proceedings are instituted, the direction shall cease or (as the case may be) have effect only in accordance with the decision of the court in those proceedings.
( ) A direction under subsection (2) of this section that action shall be taken shall not have effect until the end of the period of 28 (or, if the Secretary of State in the direction certifies that the public interest so requires, 14)

days beginning on the date on which the direction is given; but the Assembly or the Attorney-General or any other person may, within that period, institute proceedings for the determination of the question whether the action so directed to be taken is required for any purpose referred to in paragraph (b) of the said subsection (2); and, if any such proceedings are instituted, the direction shall take effect (if at all) only in accordance with the decision of the court in those proceedings.'.
No. 233, in Clause 36, page 13, line 29, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'or' in line 32.
No. 234, in Clause 36, page 13, line 40, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'and' in line 41.
No. 235, in Clause 36, page 14, line 10, at end add—
'( ) An order under subsection (1) of this section shall be made if the House of Commons by resolution so requires, and any order so required shall, for the purposes of subsection (5) of this section, be deemed to have been approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
( ) An order under subsection (2) of this section shall not take effect until the end of the period of 28 (or, if the Secretary of State in the order certifies that the public interest so requires, 14) days beginning on the date on which the order is made; but the Assembly or the Attorney-General or any other person may, within that period, institute proceedings for the determination whether the instrument which the order revokes is incompatible with any obligation referred to in the said subsection (2) or provides for any such matter as is referred to in that subsection; and, if any such proceedings are instituted, the instrument and the order revoking it shall take effect (if at all) only in accordance with the decision of the court in those proceedings.'.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: These amendments raise a number of separate issues, but one of the issues is the treatment of the House of Lords when the Government of the day try to use their override powers and cannot get their resolution through the House of Lords. It seems that they can simply come back to the House of Commons, get the same resolution through by exploiting their Commons majority and toss aside any objection which the House of Lords may have. No doubt my Front Bench would challenge me if I had got that factually wrong.
If that is the situation, had we not better forget about all that wordy constitutional theory about the second Chamber being a guardian of the constitution? Clearly, in a matter in which the House of Lords might be thought


to have some right to delaying powers—an essential constitutional issue—in reality it has no powers whatever.
If those delaying powers in a constitutional matter are revealed simply not to exist and lip service paid to them turns out to be sheer cant, that would seem to some of us to be a reason for the abolition of the House of Lords, since they would be serving no useful purpose in matters in which, by their very nature they might be thought to have a useful role.
But of course I fear that if and when the Wales Bill goes to the Lords, they will make little objection to this, either by vote or by amendment. If their performance, with honourable exceptions, on Second Reading of the Scotland Bill is anything to go by and there is the same number of spineless speeches, all too clearly concerned mainly with the threat of their own abolition rather than with the merit of the Bill, I fear that there will be little murmur of protest at their treatment in Clause 35 and many others.
I turn to another aspect of Clause 35. Is it not a fact that a Secretary of State in one Parliament—namely, the House of Commons—will solemnly be able to give a direction to another Assembly, either to take or not to take action? In what way does that differ from the relations between Parliament and local government?
Before the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) leaves the Chamber, perhaps I might say that I heard him say at the end of our last debate on 8th March that it would be a case of one Parliament requiring another Assembly either to legislate or not to legislate. I have to ask what may seem to be a very ignorant question. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman right or wrong in relation to the Wales Bill?
As I understand it, whereas the Scottish Assembly will be a legislative body, the Welsh Assembly will not. If I have misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whose comments I checked in Hansard, I will of course give way to allow him to clarify the matter, since this is an important issue.

Sir David Renton: I would have preferred the opportunity of refreshing my memory completely as to

what I said, but since the hon. Gentleman has asked me a specific question about the legislative powers of the Welsh Assembly, my reply is that he is right in saying that it differs from the Scottish Assembly in having no powers of primary legislation. But it is to have certain limited powers of subordinate legislation, which will, of course, have the force of law.

Mr. Dalyell: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman actually said was:
It is remarkable and without precedent that the Secretary of State should be able to give a direction to another Assembly to pass subordinate legislation. If there was a precedent it would help us better to understand the position."—[Official Report, 8th March 1978; Vol. 945, cc. 1558–9.]
This is a matter which should be cleared up one way or the other.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, there is a burden on my Front Bench to comment and to give any precedents—in fact, to persuade us that it is workable at all. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not right, Ministers must say what is being offered to Wales other than a glorified and expensive local government structure. It is one or the other, and I await the Minister of State's comment with some interest.
If the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon is right, that raises some of the problems that we discussed on the Scotland Bill in relation to a Secretary of State ordering another Assembly to pass or not to pass laws. If that is the situation, how long can it endure?
I would ask any of the Welsh Ministers or any of my hon. Friend's who are present—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) or my hon. Friends the Members for Bed-wellty (Mr. Kinnock) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans)—how long they as serious politicians, would be content to sit in any such Welsh Assembly. Would any Welsh Member of Parliament or Welsh Minister think it worth his while to be a Member of a Welsh Assembly which could be treated in such a cavalier way as the Assembly can be treated under Clause 35?
I suspect that my right hon. and hon. Friends would do one of two things. Either they would decide not to seek


re-election to the Assembly, or to stay in the Assembly, or they would fight tooth and nail for it to have greater power. If they were Members of the Assembly, they would not just sit there and do nothing about it. If they claimed greater powers and fought for them, the position would not be stable if they were successful. If they decided that being Members of the Welsh Assembly was not worth while, we should ask ourselves what on earth we are doing in creating yet another tier of Government.
It comes back yet again to the question, how can such a body as is being put forward in the Bill survive in that kind of form for any number of years? Once again this highlights the confusion into which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have allowed themselves to be drawn. In view of the fact that we are under a guillotine resolution, I think it would be unfair for me to develop my argument at any greater length.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has reminded us, we have touched upon a number of sensitive areas since the start of the debate, somewhat late in the day, on 8th March. My hon. and now learned Friend, the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan)—I congratulate him on his elevation—described the effect of Section 35 very succinctly in his opening speech. It refers to the power of the Secretary of State to prevent the Assembly from taking action or requiring it to take action in certain circumstances.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said, it is remarkable and without precedent that the Secretary of State should be able to give a direction to the Assembly to pass or not to pass subordinate legislation. The circumstances in which this power could be exercised hardly bear thinking about, yet they are real enough for the Government to have anticipated them in the Bill and sought to deal with the situation of conflict between the Government, represented by the Secretary of State, and the Assembly. I should have thought that in the event of a clash between the Secretary of State and the Assembly the right hon. Gentleman would have required the full backing and support of both Houses of Parliament for

any direction that he might decide to give to the Assembly, and that he would not be content with less.
This is what makes the procedure under Section 25(6) and Section 73—to which Section 35(6) refers—so curious. Instead of being designed to secure maximum support for the Secretary of State by both Houses, the subsection allows for an alternative, which is confirmation of the original resolution by the House of Commons in the event of failure by the House of Lords to give its support. The Government thereby anticipated a situation in which the Assembly and the House of Lords are in agreement and the will of the House of Commons has to prevail against both.
I should have thought that such a situation would be bound to extend and enlarge the area of conflict and would encourage the Assembly in its defiance of the Secretary of State. The Assembly could, after all, urge that the House of Lords supported it—and it could be a very different kind of House of Lords by that time. Be that as it may, the proposition contained in Section 35(6) is wholly objectionable, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, on constitutional grounds.
The only precedent that I can find for it is in the Parliament (No. 2) Bill of 1968 "presented by Mr. Secretary Callaghan," supported by the Prime Minister and diverse Cabinet colleagues at that time. Section 15(2) of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill provides that
an instrument or draft shall be treated as approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, notwithstanding that a motion for such approval is rejected by the House of Lords, if the instrument or draft had previously been approved by resolution of the House of Commons and that resolution is subsequently confirmed by that House.
There is mention also in that Bill of a period of 10 days' grace given to their Lordships to approve or not approve. Therefore, it seems fairly clear to me that the antecedents of Section 35(6) of the Wales Bill are to be found in the Parliament (No. 2) Bill of 10 years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), at the end of our debate on 8th March, challenged the Minister to produce a precedent for this procedure of bypassing the House of Lords. He went on to say that
it is most improper, in a Bill of this nature, to introduce it in this way. The Government


are not merely introducing a Bill to alter the constitutional arrangements for Wales. They are also taking a step which … will alter the relationship between the two Houses which are part of our constitution."—[Official Report, 8th March 1977: Vol. 945. c. 1562–3.]
I share that view, and I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that the Wales Bill is not the proper place in which to slip in a major constitutional change.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Gentleman has asked for a precedent. Surely there was no precedent in this country for, say, the Parliament Act 1911, which curbed the powers of the House of Lords. I do not think that the precedent argument is a sound one, whatever other argument there may be in favour of his view.

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me—and with the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby—that there is nothing wrong with a motion or a Bill such as the Parliament (No. 2) Bill which concentrates upon a constitutional issue. What I am saying, very simply, is that the Wales Bill, relating only to Wales, surely is not the place in which to change the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: Clause 35 is a recipe for continuing conflict between the House of Commons and the Secretary of State on the one hand and the proposed Assembly on the other. If it had not appeared, it would have been impossible to believe that Clause 35 could have been drafted and presented seriously to the House of Commons, because the powers which are given to the Secretary of State in Clause 35(1) will put him and his successor in a wholly impossible position. These powers will also put the new Assembly in a wholly impossible position.
I wish to examine first the position of the Assembly if a direction were to be given by the Secretary of State. What exactly would the Assembly do if it found itself wholly out of sympathy with the political directive of the Secretary of State? Clause 35(5) provides:
A direction under this section shall be binding on the Assembly.

If the Secretary of State were to direct the Assembly to do something for which there was no majority in the Assembly, it would be possible—indeed, I would argue probable, and it might even be the duty of the Assembly which was ordered to do something which it thought wholly wrong—to defy the Secretary of State's direction. I can envisage circumstances in which the Assembly, elected in accordance with the provisions of this Bill—and finding itself with a Secretary of State whom it thought did not understand the real problems of Wales—was in disagreement with the hypothesis contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 35(1) which, after all, are extremely vague.
I remind the Committee of the actual wording. Subsection 1(a) provides
that any action proposed to be taken by the Assembly would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly".
No measure which has ever reached the statute book can have been phrased in such an immensely ambiguous way. It is emphatically the duty of the Committee to seek to obviate this recipe for conflict.
Let us suppose that the Assembly disagreed fundamentally with the Secretary of State. Let us suppose that the Assembly asserted that no reserved matter would or might be affected directly or indirectly. Let us suppose that the Secretary of State took it upon himself to argue that it was "in the public interest"—to use the words in subsection (1)—to give a direction to the Assembly. What power would the Secretary of State have to enforce his direction? It is all very well simply to say that a direction under this subsection shall be binding. But let us suppose that the Assembly, democratically elected, refused to do that which the Secretary of State directed it to do. Surely the Secretary of State would not argue that simply the direction without the agreement of the Assembly, would be binding.
We are not told in subsection (5) whether the direction shall be binding with regard to the law either of this kingdom or of the Principality. The direction simply—to use the Government's words—is "binding on the Assembly". But how can we tell the Assembly that which it must do? I invite the Minister of State to consider this proposition.
Let us suppose that we were told what we had to do by some outside body. Let


us suppose that the House of Commons declined to do that which it was told to do. I invite the Minister of State to look at his hon. Friends behind him. He cannot even tell them what to do. Mercifully that is the case. Even my right hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench—wise though they are in almost every respect—cannot direct my hon. Friends or myself what to do.

Sir Raymond Gower: Presumably a Secretary of State might consider the Assembly to be acting like another authority ultra vires and would, if necessary, have recourse to the courts. I assume that might be the way out of the puzzling situation which my hon. Friend has described. There would be resort to the court by the Secretary of State on the ground that this decision had been binding on the Assembly.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. What puzzles and perplexes me is how an order by the Secretary of State can require the Assembly to act and to vote in a certain way. As an illustration of that dilemma, I referred to the position with regard to the House of Commons. I said that even such a wise Front Bench as my own could not direct my hon. Friends. It is not possible to direct Members of an Assembly any more than it is possible to direct Members of Parliament.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is there not an analogy in that the hon. Gentleman's own party, when last in power, tried to direct the councillors of Clay Cross to carry out a certain policy which they expected those councillors to undertake?

Mr. Gow: That is a wholly false and rather mischievous analogy. I shall not be diverted down the path of Clay Cross, particularly as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not in his place.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I would in no way seek to replace my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I wish to add another dimension to the analogy that was put forward by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). Will the hon. Gentleman take on board the fact that at the time of the rebellions against the Housing Finance Act the Bedwas and Machen

Urban District Council in South Wales rebelled? Plaid Cymru promised that council its most faithful and extensive support. But subsequently, when Plaid Cymru was fortunate enough to be able to secure nearly a majority on the council, and to take positions on the council, it made no attempt whatever to alleviate the burden imposed on some of the people involved as a consequence of that rebellion. Indeed, Plaid Cymru completely reversed its word, which is entirely typical.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Housing Finance Act. It was very much to my regret, if not to the hon. Gentleman's, that I was not a Member at the time that that Act was going through Parliament. I do not feel competent to be led astray down that path. I do not wish to be diverted either by the Labour Party or by the solitary representative of Plaid Cymru.
I come back to the main problem posed by Clause 35. I invite the Minister of State, when replying, to direct himself to this question. How can the Secretary of State direct that action shall not be taken? What would happen if the Assembly declined to conform with the directive? How will the Secretary of State decide whether something is desirable in the public interest? How will he make up his mind about whether something might indirectly be capable of affecting a reserved matter? In these respects I honestly believe that we are in the world of Alice in Wonderland.
The amendment seeks to bring us back to the world of reality. If we enact Clause 35 without amendment we can be sure, however well intentioned the burdens which will rest upon the Secretary of State, there is the prospect of continual conflict between the Secretary of State and the new Assembly, and between the House of Commons and the new Assembly, and the future is fraught with the gravest peril.
Suppose that the Secretary of State decided that it was in the public interest that a reserve matter might be affected indirectly. Suppose that he made a direction which, according to the Bill, is "binding on the Assembly". However, subsection (6) provides that even his direction, made in good faith,
will cease to have effect at the expiration of a period of 28 days.


What happens if we are in recess? Are we being told that no direction can be made unless there is a possibility of the House of Commons or another place approving it within 28 days? This seems to be another aspect that we must consider.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Before the hon. Member launches too far on that line of argument, I should point out that Clause 74 provides:
In reckoning any period for the purposes of section 35, 36 or 73 above, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

Mr. Gow: That is exactly the point. Parliament is neither prorogued nor dissolved during the Summer Recess; it is adjourned. Therefore, the Minister's point is not valid.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member must have heard what I said but in case he did not I shall repeat it. I said that this applied if the House of Commons was adjourned for more than four days. This covers the hon. Member's argument. He must admit that he is on a false point on this matter.

Mr. Gow: I readily concede that on this point the Minister of State is correct. However, that does not alter the fact that this clause, if passed unamended, will be a constitutional disaster of the first magnitude.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I rise to respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Having listened to him very carefully, I find myself in some confusion. I am not sure whether I am alone in this or whether I share it with my hon. Friend. He seemed to argue that the Bill represents nothing more than a glorified county council, and what self-respecting politician would deign to serve on a county council?

Mr. Dalyell: No.

Mr. Ellis: That seemed to be the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument. Maybe I am misrepresenting him, in which case he will correct me, but that was the impression I got.
In the Scotland Bill debate, my hon. Friend argued that the Government were proposing to set up a Parliament which was almost equal to this Parliament and that, therefore, inevitably there would be clashes between two equal bodies. It seems that my hon. Friend is attempting to have his cake and eat it at the same time.

Mr. Dalyell: That is not so. The argument on the Scotland Bill was in the context of the question of legislation. There are great differences between the Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill. One is tempted to ask, if devolution is about good government, why the Scots should have more and the Welsh should have less.

Mr. Ellis: My hon. Friend mentions legislation, and that has added to my confusion. Clause 35 has nothing to do with legislation. It is concerned with the actions which may or may not be taken by the Welsh Assembly. My hon. Friend is pre-empting the arguments on the next clause, and this might have added to my confusion. I am dealing with the amendment relating to Clause 35 and the actions that might be taken by the Assembly.
Some of the discussion that we have had seemed to display a failure on the part of some hon. Members to understand the very nature of the political process and, in particular, how it is changing in order to keep abreast of social changes in the latter part of the twentieth century. What is happening is a fumbling attempt by politicians to devise a political structure that is consonant with the needs of the period in which we live.
During the period when local government organisation as we now know it was set up, conditions were static and people could take a black and white view of the picture. The local authority, whether it is Clay Cross or one of the South Wales authorities dealing with the Housing Finance Act, is strictly bound within clear-cut legal definitions. All that the Government have to do with an errant council is to ask whether it is breaking the law. If it is, clearly the Government have a policy to pursue to rectify the matter, using the whole force of the law.
It is precisely because this Assembly is not a glorified county council that there is some confusion. Hon. Members are


desperately anxious to get this black and white static picture whereby we can frame a set of laws to constrain the Assembly that is proposed for Wales, because clearly the Assembly will be political in the full sense of the word.
When the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asked how the Secretary of State would decide whether something was in the public interest, a thought flashed through my mind about the precise meaning of the words "public interest". Which public? Is it the British public, the English public or the Welsh public? I shall not follow that argument, but obviously straight away there is a huge area of political issues arising from the simple assumption of the hon. Member that the public interest refers to the British public. It might be that in the Welsh Assembly the public interest would be that of the Welsh public. Often the interests of the Welsh public might not coincide with those of the British public, the Scottish public or the English public.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does not the point that the hon. Member has just made demonstrate the great danger of this wording? Surely it illustrates the fact that this will not be an objective judgment about public interest but possibly a very subjective judgment by a particular Secretary of State referring to the public interest in terms of the United Kingdom or Wales alone or otherwise?

Mr. Ellis: We are living dangerously in politically dangerous times. How can the Secretary of State actually enforce this decision to instruct the Assembly to do something or not? The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), and others gave the example of Clay Cross, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) referred to the actions of a council concerning the Housing Finance Act. These are not the best examples to give, because they arise out of the old-fashioned Victorian black and white, highly regulated approach.
The best examples are those where the Government attempt, for example, to institute a wages policy. One must ask how the Government can actually instruct the public, the trade unions or private companies not to pay a certain level of wages. This is a problem confronting us arising out of the change from a vertically structured

hierarchical society to a laterally structured democratic society. This creates all sorts of problems. This clause is a genuine and creditable attempt to deal in a legislative way with some of these problems.

Mr. Wigley: In alluding to Clay Cross, I was trying to draw the attention of the Conservative Party to the problems arising from this Government's difficulty in implementing that sort of legalistic approach. The whole lesson of Clay Cross, Merthyr Tydfil and Machen, of which I was a councillor—one of the 11 who took a line against the Housing Finance Act—is that one cannot legislate what people will want to do. One can erect a legalistic framework, but that is all. The Conservatives made the same mistake in relation to local councils as they did on industrial relations. I am trying to point out to them that they cannot approach such matters in this way.

Mr. Ellis: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It may be that, if we have in mind the old-fashioned framework of local authorities and the glorified county council approach, the system is breaking down. I am giving another example, which is more vivid, on the wages front. There are many other aspects of the same problem.
The problem is how, in a unitary State, authority can reside at the top of the pyramid in this Parliament. The plain fact is that authority or sovereignty can no longer reside at the top of that pyramid. The nature of our democracy is such that people will not accept somebody at the top telling those at the bottom precisely what to do. This is the fundamental problem with which the whole issue of devolution is concerned.
I despair when I hear some hon. Members trying to argue the merits and demerits of this matter in a legalistic, dried-up manner. Although I can make all kinds of criticisms of various proposals, both on the Scotland Bill and on the Wales Bill, nevertheless I recognise that there is serious need which the Government are attempting to meet in seeking to devise a political structure that will be appropriate for a completely new social and political situation.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want my hon. Friend to despair, and I do not want to try to dry him up in any way, but I want


to ask him one simple question. From his point of view and given his assumptions, how does he think that the scheme proposed in the Bill can last in terms of years—three years, five years or much longer?

Mr. Ellis: My hon. Friend in that intervention illustrates the difference between his view and mine. He is asking me essentially—I hope that I do not misrepresent him—how long this system will last, because he is anticipating that this structure will last for ever. I differ from him because I do not want it to last for ever. I see this structure as the start of something that will change into something else and then change into something else again. That will happen because it is no longer possible in changing circumstances to freeze a political structure. One might devise a political structure which might be regarded as the most perfect structure for the time being, but inevitably it will become outmoded. The one golden rule of politics is that nothing ever stays the same, because things change across the whole world of politics. The golden rule of politics is that one has to travel. One travels hopefully and hopes to arrive.

Mr. Francis Pym: Is not the difference on this Bill that before it even starts we know that it will not work? It is all very well to say that times will change, that amendments will have to be made and new arrangements brought in. Of course they will, but I emphasise that the point about this Bill is that we know before it starts that it will not endure and, therefore, it is unsatisfactory in principle on those grounds.

Mr. Ellis: I would not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being opinionated, but all he is doing on this occasion is stating his opinion. My opinion is that this system will work, and I say that for a number of reasons. It will work, first of all, because of public demand. The ultimate consideration is that of sovereignty. Sovereignty does not lie here but lies in the people. People vest sovereignty in a particular political structure. If the Welsh Assembly behaves itself in such a silly way as not to secure the confidence of the Welsh people, it will fail. But I do not think that the people appointed to the Welsh Assembly—the Assemblymen—will be so silly as not to appreciate

that fact. It may be that they will not be so prejudiced by the history of events as to be baffled by archaism.
I must emphasise that I have a great respect for this place, the Mother of Parliaments, but that respect falls far short of idolatry. At the time we were sending for Sir Charles Villiers, I felt that the Serjeant at Arms should have gone on that task in his knickerbockers and with his sword as somebody representing the House of Commons in the twentieth century. The point I am making is that the whole basis of the Government's proposals is to try to devise a political structure that will cater for present-day conditions. Clearly the Government will not get the matter right first go. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] One does not reject the good on the ground that it is not perfect. When I say that they will not get it right, I am pointing out that it will not be perfect. But, even as it is now drafted, it is a far sounder proposition, than the present set-up, which involves a highly centralised unitary State.

Sir David Renton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Welsh Assembly will have no chance whatever of getting the matter right until it has found out, with the aid of lawyers, what the Bill means, what are its powers and how those powers will work? Does he not agree that there is a strong probability that many lawyers will disagree about that?

Mr. Ellis: Clearly, in any structure the rule of law must apply. One has to have a guiding framework. I am no lawyer and I would not like to spell out the legal technical issues. My point is that the approach adopted by the Opposition, and, indeed, by my hon. Friend for West Lothian, is profoundly misconceived. If we could start off with a different approach and then see what was wrong, we might get somewhere.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: In response to criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and others, will my hon. Friend point out to them that, despite all the weaknesses and failings in the appalling situations in Northern Ireland, the fact is that the legislative Assembly there lasted for 50 years and that it was not a breach of the ultra vires principle that brought it down?

Mr. Ellis: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who, with his customary wisdom, has put forward a sound argument.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Will the hon. Gentleman point out to his right hon. Friend that on this Bill we are not talking about a legislative Assembly and that any comparison with Northern Ireland is completely meaningless? Will he go on to explain how he thinks that it can work if laws are to be made in one place but executed by the Welsh Assembly sitting in another place? Is not the system bound to fall apart?

Mr. Ellis: I appreciate the question, but I shall not answer it now. Clause 36 deals with the law. We are now dealing with Clause 35, and I am trying to stay within the rules of order and so far the Chair has been very kind to me. We are talking about the actions of the Assembly. We can discuss the law on the next clause.
I conclude by saying that the fact that the Government are proposing to include in the Bill some kind of provision whereby the central authority—that is to say, British Government authority—can intervene, wisely or unwisely, controversially or non-controversially, underlines the fact that what is proposed is certainly no glorified county council.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I support the amendment moved by my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) will forgive me for not taking up all the points he made, but there are one or two matters which I shall deal with later in my remarks.
My hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby shares with the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) the considerable distinction of being regarded by The Sunday Times as people who will be making headlines throughout the 1980s. Indeed, my right hon. Friend for Cambridgeshire was described as a country gentlemen with no doctrinal hang-ups. When one looks at the record of the Conservative Party over the past 200 years one finds this very reassuring

because we have been ravaged by the problems of country gentlemen with doctrinal hang-ups
5.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty fared even worse. He has been described as the Left-winger that every Right-winger loves. I shall not pursue the hon. Member along that avenue.
As I heard the Minister of State delivering his interesting tribute, I had a feeling of jealousy. I am wondering why the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and myself have been excluded from this category. Here is a group which has pursued the Scotland and Wales Bill, the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill. All are included except the hon. Member for West Lothian and myself.
I feel emotions comparable with those that I had at the Conservative Party conference when Mr. William Haigh tottered from his pram to say that in 30 years he would be here and I would not. I felt strongly about that because in 30 years I have every intention of being there and here, unless the grim rebuff following the lamentable example of the Lord President of the Council brings down the chopper before we have had a reasonable discussion on the matters at issue between us.
The point made by my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby before The Sunday Times made its pre-emptive strike for a good libel lawyer, emphasised that the Bill as it stands gives to the Government the mechanism to use its override powers regardless of the House of Lords. That is the purpose of the clause and that, above all, is the purpose of Clause 73 to which the clause that we are now discussing is intimately related.
There are no doubt arguments, from the hon. Member for Bedwellty and others, for the limitation of the powers of the House of Lords. There are even arguments, I gather, for the abolition of the House of Lords. I am bound to say that my distinguished constituents, particularly in the Newnham division of Cambridge, whose adherence to the red carpet is stronger than it is to the Red Flag, will be dismayed that these kinds of arguments are brought forward too much. Every time the hon. Member produces such arguments a thrill of horror goes through that area of my constituency. If the hon. Member continues in that way


I may rise to even greater triumphs on the argument to preserve the House of Lords. But where would Lord Kaldor have lunch?

Mr. Kinnock: If the House of Commons persists in denying the vote to the House of Lords, it can protest as much as it likes. Indeed, I hope that in many cases my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will appoint thousands and thousands more Tory Lords, all in marginal Conservative seats.

Mr. Rhodes James: I thought that the idea was to appoint more and more of my Socialist constituents to the House of Lords, thereby perceptively increasing my majority. The hon. Gentleman puts forward a view last heard in 1911 and put forward with emphasis at that time.

Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman must be mistaken: 1911 was the last year in which England won the Triple Crown.

Mr. Rhodes James: The hon. Member has the capacity to degrade the serious constitutional issues which we are debating. He is not even right about that. As I remember it was in the debate in the 1960s—

Mr. Kinnock: The 1860s.

Mr. Rhodes James: I wish to emphasise that Clause 73 and this clause give the Government of the day, of whatever party, override powers regardless of the House of Lords and the influence and involvement of the House of Commons. Although we may have a Welsh Assembly—I am opposed to that concept—it is ludicrous to put into the Bill a situation in which the real dominator of the Welsh Assembly is the Secretary of State and the House of Commons and another place has no involvement. This would give to the Secretary of State a power which overrides in a serious way the rights and privileges of the Welsh Assembly.
If I were a Welsh Member for Parliament instead of being merely half-Welsh as I am, I should resent intensely this provision being written into the Bill because it is indicative of the thinking behind this Bill and the Scotland Bill. One would be half giving the principle of devolution and including in it provision to retain the reality of power in the British Government and in the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dalyell: Were my hon. Friend a Welsh Member of Parliament, would he not within weeks of becoming one either strive for more power and blame everything that went wrong on the English or decide quickly that he would not bother to spend his life trying to be elected to that body?

Mr. Rhodes James: I entirely agree. That is the point made also in the Scotland Bill—that either we create an Assembly with real powers or we create the present one, with very few. But if we have the latter the first thing that the Assemblies will do is to look at their powers and position and ask for a rightful place and a rightful voice in the conduct of their own affairs. That is why this Bill and the Scotland Bill are totally irrelevant to the profundity of the problems even in this nation and in Wales and Scotland.
The dominant influence will be the Secretary of State because the House of Commons majority of the time will almost inevitably, as my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby pointed out, support the Secretary of State of the day regardless of the details of the argument. In this situation the qualifications and safeguards contained in the Bill as it stands are irrelevant. They do not match up to the scale of the problems involved and fall far short of what the Committee is entitled to expect in a Bill of this importance and what the people of Wales are entitled to see in a Bill of such critical importance to them.
As my hon, and learned Friend emphasised, if the amendments of the Opposition were accepted it would not drive a large gap through the Bill. It would provide the House of Commons with the opportunity—I emphasise the word "opportunity" and not the word "right"—to have a say and involvement in the initiation and control of the override procedures. At a time when the opportunities of Parliament—of the House of Commons in particular—are being ruthlessly diminished and the Executive is eagerly grabbing more powers, it is absolutely essential that this modest but significant amendment against that encroachment should be written into the Bill.
I cannot understand why the Government and the Minister of State did not


intervene at the outset to emphasise how they understood the fundamental and deeply important constitutional point which my hon, and learned Friend was making, which my hon. Friends have supported and which have been supported by the Government Benches. These are important and very significant constitutional amendments. I hope that the Government, even at this stage, even in view of its record of intransigence in the past, in the discussion of this Bill and the Scotland Bill, will change their mind. The Minister of State should rise to the occasion and rise to his build-up in the Press and accept these amendments.

Mr. Kinnock: When I listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), I frequently think, whilst enjoying what he has to say, naturally, in a comradely style, that I am in some kind of sociological laboratory and that the House of Commons and all other democratic assemblies to which my hon. Friend belongs are mere extensions of that laboratory to permit politicians to experiment with new forms of constitution, new systems of government, and new arrangements for the levying of taxation and the expenditure of public finances so that the people, if they have relatively little confidence in the status quo, can at least be reassured that their representatives are continually prodding and investigating every possible avenue for changing the rules under which they are governed in response to what my hon. Friend frequently describes as public opinion on public demand.
I suppose that when his other experiments come to fruition—he has already engaged successfully in one in his enthu-siam for our membership of the EEC—when the paper is lit, the water is boiled, the chemicals have mixed and an explosion occurs in the true sociological fashion, the true fashion of the experimenter and researcher, he will be able to say to the people of Wales or Britain "Well, back to the drawing board".
The matters of public emotion, relationships between nations and how people's taxes will be spent and who will be spending them and the rules governing how they are spent go beyond the luxury of experimentation. There is no university model that can be drawn. We are not engaged in an academic exercise.

We are discussing people's lives, the way they shall live and whether they shall live in relative happiness or in disastrous un-happiness. We therefore have to get it right.

Mr. Tom Ellis: It is not so much a question of the luxury of experimenting; it is rather a question of the luxury of staying exactly as we are. It is not a question of being unfair; it is a question of profound disillusion with the present set-up.

Mr. Kinnock: I have at least as much enthusiasm as my hon. Friend for change, for securing, to use the words of our election manifesto, the "fundamental and irreversible change" in favour of the working people. I accept that my hon. Friend is at least as committed in that direction, unapologetically, ideologically and in practice, as I am. I am committed because I am a Socialist but also because I understand, as a democrat, that only a totalitarian system can thrive without change. Totalitarian systems of any kind commit themselves and their resources heavily to the prevention of change, even to the prevention of those who would voice the need for change.
It is not the change that I quarrel with or even the discussion of experiments in change. What I quarrel with concerns getting the wrong changes. I say to my hon. Friend and others who support these proposals that they are supporting the wrong change. Hon. Members speak of toppling what my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham has described as a pyramid. They talk about removing this apex, of diversifying and devolving government. Yet they are still willing to support a Bill in which none of the effective resolutions of government or the important decisions of government are, in the words of the 1975 White Paper, "taken nearer the people". This is an exercise in misguiding the public, an exercise in the most contemptuous centralist condescension. That is characteristic of devolution.
What we have in Clause 35 and in this part of the Bill generally is an attempt by the Government to have their devolutionary cake and eat their centralist bread. The consequence of that, if it comes about, will be a formula for conflict, with no profit to the Welsh people.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Change.

Mr. Kinnock: I say to my hon. Friend that the criterion I will apply to change, whether as advocated by him, by me or by my right hon. Friends, is whether it will advance the interests—democratic, political, social, economic, even sociological—of the Welsh people. If the changes proposed by my right hon, and hon. Friends cannot satisfy that criterion of advance and benefit, I say that it is the duty of hon. Members elected by the people in Wales to throw out those changes. That is why, unlike my hon. Friend, I am resolutely opposed to the proposals made by my right hon. Friends.
By the very nature of these proposals, government from henceforth will be a cat and mouse game, a proposition through which, by default, the Welsh people can presumably, through their Welsh Assembly, fulfil their national destiny. If the central Parliament, elected in part by those same people, cannot agree with the national Assembly, presumably again articulating the national demands of the Welsh people, that democratically elected Assembly in Cardiff will be overruled and overturned, and its decisions thrown out. The best that we can have is government from the centre by default, and the worst we can have is perpetual conflict between two democratically elected assemblies, elected by the same people, conceivably at different times, coming to entirely different conclusions about what is best for the people of Wales. If there is another formula, not for change but for disarray, followed by chaos, followed by decay of the interests of the people of Wales, I believe that we should have to spend a great deal of time searching for it.
5.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham is welcome to conduct his experiments. My right hon. Friends are welcome to conduct theirs, just so long as they do not have a detrimental effect on the interests of the people of Wales or on the unity of the kingdom. Whereas my hon. Friend honestly says that he considers this Bill to be a start on something different, my right hon, and hon. Friends on the Front Bench say that it is an end to something different.
My right hon, and hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not think that we shall go any further than this Bill. This Bill is here, as originally conceived, to

bond the unity of the people. It is here to meet the demand for devolutionary change in Wales which, by some remarkable feat of perspicacity beyond most hon. Members, the Government have been able to discern. I have not been able to discern this demand, and neither have most of my hon. Friends, Tory Members or my constituents. But my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and my right hon, and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are aware of this demand from Wales.
I have to explain to my hon. Friend, on behalf of my right hon. Friends—although they are extremely good at explaining things away in the devolutionary context; they are quite excellent in all other spheres, of course—that my right hon. Friends do not intend to go any further than this Bill. They intend that the permanent relationship between the people of Wales, the central Parliament and the central Government shall henceforth be that if the Assembly wishes to do something and the Palace of Westminster does not object to that within 28 days it is all right. I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on this.
What if the proposition in Cardiff should involve, say, an industrial commission of some description? It does not have to be the allocation of a grant because the Welsh Assembly does not have that power. It may be concerned with the conveniences required for the conclusion of an important commercial decision. There has then to be a pause in the whole procedure while Parliament makes up its mind.
We have to consider the effect on future generations because these are tablets of stone contained in the Bill—and they will guarantee that it will sink when subjected to the fresh water of public opinion. The fact remains that the proposition here is for a permanent system of government. To secure change will not require a simple adjustment of this measure on a future occasion or some well-meaning, articulate and amicable discussion in the Palace of Westminster. The next step beyond this is the usurpation of this measure against the interests of this House. The next step beyond this takes us towards not more devolution but a much harsher form of suppression of two systems of government.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does my hon. Friend accept that in the political process there


are no tablets of stone? In the nineteenth century, a very slow moving century, there were enormous changes. I take it from the thrust of his argument that he accepts the need for change in the political structure of this country, but rejects this set of proposals. Would he like to elaborate OP the proposals for changes in the political structure which he would like to see?

Mr. Kinnock: With your indulgence, Mr. Murton, I should be glad to address the Committee for the next hour on the abolition of the House of Lords, the introduction of worker control—

The Chairman: Order. The Chair has been tolerant up to now, but it cannot be as tolerant as all that.

Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that I can stay entirely within order and answer the first point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham about the pace of change, since it directly involves the principle of this Bill. My hon. Friend would be the first to recognise, as an erstwhile Marxist of some description, that the pace of change of the last century was faster than that accomplished, certainly in social and political terms, in any other century in the history of mankind and that it was prompted and dictated by the incessant demands, inspired by the economic purposes, of an organised working class. That was the first time this had occurred.
The consequence of that was that we now have a most remarkable and advanced social democracy in this country. In pursuant of economic emancipation, people understood that they had to have constitutional change and an extension of their civic rights. They fought for that. There is no economic demand inspiring the Bill and no economic response provided by it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham is saying that there is nowt as permanent as change and that this is his reason for saying that there are no tablets of stone, that is fair enough. However, in the Bill and the continued professions of the Government we have an answer to the demand that my hon. Friend, and those who think like him, believe has come from the people of Wales for the decentralisation of government and devolution of decision-making.
That is the proposal contained in the Bill and if it is calcified and turned into

stone, it is because of the Government's protest that this is not the beginning of the slippery slope but that this is as far as we are going. That is what makes the proposals tablets of stone. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and I think that change is permanent—

The Chairman: Order. I have given the hon. Member long enough to answer his hon. Friend. We are dealing with the powers of the Secretary of State and we must not go so wide as to talk about tablets of stone. The Chair is getting a little stoney hearted now and I think that we must return to the amendment.

Mr. Kinnock: I should not like to see that hardening of the arteries, Mr. Murton.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and I are at one on the need for change, but we are not at one on the need for this change or the direction in which it will take us.
I ask my hon. Friend, the Committee and the Government to understand that some people in Wales have demands that could be answered by the separation of powers and some have demands that would be satisfied by the status quo, but none will be satisfied by the condescending powers contained in this clause to which hon. Members opposite have offered amendments.
The simple reason for this is that we cannot have halfway houses in democracy. We cannot have a shuffling of powers and create a national Assembly with the status, pomp and apparent power endowed in that Assembly and simultaneously have a supervening, superimposing, superintendent centralist Parliament which can make up its mind, after pretending to have awarded substantial powers to the Assembly, when and on which powers it wants to withdraw the effective decision making of the Assembly.
If we were talking about the devolution of powers throughout the United Kingdom or the establishment of a constitution on that quasi-federal basis, this argument could not arise because there would be an understanding of the relationship between the central Government and devolved government. However, the formula in the clause is a formula not for


understanding, but for frustration, misunderstanding, chaos, confusion and conflict. It should not be supported.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend is making an attack on the whole concept of the clause. I shall be happy to reply to that later, but he also referred to the Opposition amendments. Does he not agree that they do not propose a radical alteration to the clause but are an attempt to preserve the powers of the House of Lords?

Mr. Kinnock: I think that I have said enough about my general opinion of the House of Lords and I hope that, in his reply, my hon. Friend will agree with my view. Obviously any proposal for an extension or endorsement of the powers of the House of Lords, as applied to devolution or any other matter, would not have my support. The usefulness of this amendment and succeeding amendments is that they give us the opportunity to expose the dichotomy and delusion in this clause and this general area of the Bill.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) made the astonishing statement that there are no halfway houses in democracy, but surely the growth of democracy has been nothing but a succession of halfway houses. The hon. Gentleman, when arguing against the Common Market, said that our accession to the Treaty of Rome was a halfway house to the sort of Europe of which he did not approve. The entire thrust of his argument was misconceived, but at least he made no bones about the fact that he was attacking the clause because he attacks the entire concept of devolution as presented in the Bill.
I had not intended to speak on these particular amendments, but the attacks on Clause 35, through the basis of the amendments, are virtually attacks on the Bill itself. We have heard the most astonishing arguments put forward. There has been a gross exaggeration of the chaos that will exist if the Bill becomes law and the Welsh Assembly is set up. I do not believe them for a moment.
The British constitution would not work at all if it were not that we have evolved constitutional functions and then

paid due regard to them. Anybody who is sensible about this realises, for example, that if we have a federal constitution—and I am a believer in federalism—one of the advantages is that there is a separation of powers. Certain powers are given to the subsidiary Assembly and certain reserve powers are kept at the centre, and there is generally a constitutional court of some kind to give decisions where there is a matter of dispute.
In the concept of devolution whereby the House of Commons and the Secretary of State devolve certain powers to an Assembly in Wales, clearly there are difficulties about the override provision. It is necessary to have an override provision, otherwise the Welsh Assembly may do something outside its powers which is undesirable in the interests of the country as a whole. There must be someone who is allowed to intervene. That is what Clause 35 is concerned with.
However difficult it may have been to frame Clauses 35 and 36, I think the Government have made a fair attempt at it. I do not think they can be greatly improved. I can understand those people, like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who attack Clause 35 because they dislike the whole concept of devolution as expressed in this Bill. That is one thing. But when I look at the amendments and ask whether they would be an improvement on what is proposed, the answer is "No".
In the end it depends on the good sense of the Secretary of State, the people who are running the House of Commons, and the elected Members of the Welsh Assembly. This is how we have always run our affairs. I disagree with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who suggested that in the last century everything was clear cut and was put forward in black and white. That is not my understanding as a student for some time of constitutional history and the constitutional development of this country. That is not how it happened at all. There were very often gross deficiencies in many of the Acts, yet they worked because the people democratically elected to various bodies observed conventions and evolved them.
Compared with the amendments, the clause is a good provision for resolving


disputes that are likely to arise between the Assembly and this House.
The critics seem to imply that the Members of a Welsh Assembly will be a lot of barbarians, anxious to break out of the United Kingdom at the earliest opportunity. Only a small minority of people in Wales want to break up the United Kingdom. The vast majority of elected representatives will want to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom; they will want the Assembly to run well and will want a good relationship between the Assembly and this House and between the Assembly and the Secretary of State. If it had been left to me, I should have abolished the position of the Secretary of State and had a much more forthright form of devolution. However, that would not have carried support in this place as at present constituted.
We must proceed bearing in mind the insistence of the Opposition and many of the critics of the Bill on the Government Benches that the position of the Secretary of State be maintained. Therefore, it seems sensible that he is given the override provision. The only question is how he is to exercise it. The thrust of the argument of the Opposition is that the other place should be brought in. As I understand the argument, it is said that it would be wrong by means of a side-wind to alter the constitutional relationship between another place and this place. It is said that that should be done by means of a direct Bill that deals specifically with the powers of another place. I hope that I am not misrepresenting the argument advanced by the Opposition, even though I am not putting it as precisely and eloquently as the hon, and learned Member for Whitby and Cleveland (Mr. Brittan).

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: To revert to the hon, and learned Gentleman's earlier points, they are not barbarians but people who would be extremely dissatisfied with the lot into which they had come as members of the Welsh Assembly. Short of a federal State, which is what the hon, and learned Gentleman wants, is it his idea of an Assembly that Assemblymen are to be full-time or part-time for 37 weeks or more in a year, five days a week? Are they to be full-time or are they to be parttime

with other jobs? That is the sort of earthly consideration that is rather pertinent.

Mr. Hooson: That question has nothing to do with that which we are discussing. I reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. There are Members of this place who are Marxists. There are Members of this place who believe in the separation of Scotland from England and Wales. There are Members who believe in the separation of Wales from the United Kingdom. Do they get their own way? Do they fail to obey the conventions of the House of Commons or do they observe the law, the conventions of the House of Commons and the way in which we conduct our affairs in Parliament? There is a general misconception that if we have a Welsh Assembly suddenly everyone within it will take leave of his senses. In fact, they will do what the vast majority of the British people always do: they will obey the law follow the conventions and establish a good working relationship with the House of Commons. If in future they want to improve that relationship, they will make representations through their Members of Parliament.

Mr. Kinnock: The hon, and learned Gentleman is exaggerating and misunderstanding. The proposition advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is not that people would become barbarians or take leave of their senses. There is no parallel with the conduct of this place. The proposition that the hon, and learned Gentleman must answer is that by the very nature of Assemblymen holding the office of representative in an Assembly in Wales their will, their hopes and their decisions will be frustrated by the blocking mechanism of central Government and they will become resentful in a way in which only minorities can become resentful They will become zealots in a way in which only minorities can become zealots. The hon, and learned Gentleman must put his remarks into a devolved context within the realities of the Bill and not base them on his imagination of what could happen in the House of Commons and draw analogies from that.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman cited the case of the Bedwas and Machen Council which disagreed with an Act


passed by Parliament. It expressed its protest by refusing to obey the law, but in the end it had to do so because that was the law of the land. No doubt those councillors would have liked the power to carry out the law as they thought it should be, but they could not do so. People accept that relationship. They accept that a council is a subordinate body and they would accept that an elected Assembly would be a subordinate body to this place. I see no difficulty in that respect.

Mr. Pym: The debate has shown, once again, that there is a remarkable lack of genuine support for the Bill in the House of Commons. The Bill has had a certain amount of support from the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). It has had halfhearted support from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis). The hon. Gentleman linked that limited support with half-hearted apologies for the shortcomings of the Bill and forecast that it could not last long. He seemed to be saying that he wanted to change things for the sake of change. I think that that is a sort of anarchy.
The clause relates to the override provisions which empower Westminster to override the Assembly. If that is not to lead to dispute and disharmony within the United Kingdom, I do not know what is. The hon. Member for Bed-wellty (Mr. Kinnock) thought that that would happen, and I entirely agree with him. Even the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery thought that it would lead to difficulties. Of course it will. Surely we should be concentrating upon finding a way of binding the United Kingdom together more harmoniously and not bringing forward Bills that are bound to damage the unity of the United Kingdom.
I, too, offer my congratulations to my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). I am glad that I can call him that. Although I have never been able to call him that before, I have always thought of him as that. My hon, and learned Friend concentrated on two of the main issues that are raised by the clause. There are a number of issues to which the Minister will have to reply, but surely the most important is the proposed procedure in Parliament, especially the procedure as

regards another place. That is because the power is taken in the clause to overrule not only the Assembly in Wales but another place. We come to the issue properly in Clause 73, but even then I do not think it will be the appropriate time to take up the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and to deal properly with the constitutional implications of another place.
In Amendments Nos. 229, 233 and 234, the Opposition seek to expunge from the clause the Government's flight into unicameralism. After all, that is what it is. The Government like to make it sound innocent and to dress it up, but what is proposed is the overruling of another place should it come to an inconvenient decision. If it should come to a decision that the Government do not like, they want the power to override. They are saying "We are masters now and we shall take no notice of what another place has decided". The Opposition are utterly opposed to that attitude, Whatever changes are required in another place—and we agree that changes are necessary and desirable—that is not a change that we can possibly accept.
However, that approach suits the Labour Party very well at the moment. In a way, I suppose that it is the beginning of its programme leading to the demolition of another place, which is what it comes to. I find it surprising that the Government should be worried in any way about the powers in another place. They are used very seldom. I suppose that that is part of the difficulty. As regards subordinate legislation, I think that it has used is powers only once, and that was 10 years ago on the Rhodesian sanctions. Its powers have been used hardly ever before or since. I do not know why the Government should be worried about needing to exclude whatever another place may decide on the basis of a whipped vote in this place.
However, in the clause the overruling of another place would be bound to fuel the flames of controversy between the House of Commons and the Welsh Assembly. In such circumstances the other place would be supporting the Assembly against the Secretary of State. The circumstances would be that those in another place would be refusing to pass an order that prevented the Assembly


from doing something that it wanted to do, or directing it to do something that it did not want to do—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). Whatever else would be the consequence of that, it would increase the tension and conflict that will arise between the House of Commons and the Assembly.
I regret that there has not been a proper or adequate public debate in the country about these issues and that there is a completely inadequate appreciation of the implications of the Bill. If it is passed—I hope that it is not—and if in due time it comes to a referendum, I believe and forecast that there will, even at that time, be too little public understanding in Wales and anywhere else about the true meaning and implications of the Bill.
In the context of the House of Lords, it is wrong to play about with the constitution of the United Kingdom in the course of trying to pass a Bill dealing with the constitution of Wales.
The second main matter dealt with by my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby was the need to give Parliament the right to express a view on these override questions and the power to initiate the use of the override provisions. In the Bill only the Secretary of State has that right. Of course, he will be subject to all manner of political pressures. All kinds of influences and considerations will be brought to bear upon him, and naturally they will have a powerful effect on his decisions.
It seems that in future there will be nothing to stop a Secretary of State altering or expanding the powers of the Assembly without any reference to Parliament. He could do it by not exercising his powers under Clause 35. The mere inactivity of the Minister will change the powers of the Assembly.
It appears that the intention of the clause, if passed in its present form, is that if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State—and only the Secretary of State—an Assembly action
would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly
and that action is not in the public interest, again, in the opinion solely of the Secretary of State, that action would be stopped.
It is not a question of vires. The courts cannot intervene. They have no power, authority or means of intervening. It is left solely to the discretion of the Secretary of State, because no one else can operate these powers—not even the House of Commons. We think that is wrong.
Parliament has a say only if the Secretary of State takes certain action. It cannot have any say if the Secretary of State fails to take any action or decides not to take any action. Therefore, is it not possible in this way to change and extend the powers of the Assembly, as it were, by default either deliberately or otherwise? If the powers in the clause were not used on an occasion when many people thought that they should be used, we should establish a precedent for non-use of the powers. Therefore, there is here a great deal of anxiety. I hope that the Minister will comment on that aspect of the matter.
A third major matter, which has hardly been touched upon in the three hours of debate, relates to Amendments Nos. 230 and 235. They are concerned with powers of override in relation to our European Community and international obligations.
If the Government believe that the arrangements for overruling the Assembly in instances where its actions might affect a reserved matter are right, why did they choose not to use them in instances of alleged incompatibility with European Community or international obligations? Under the Bill the Secretary of State, acting on his own, will be able to veto any action of the Assembly which appears to him to be incompatible with a Community or other obligation. That does not seem to the Opposition to be a satisfactory arrangement.
First, there is the parliamentary point. Should not the Secretary of State have to seek parliamentary approval for his decision? There is no provision for that in subsection (2). Should there not be an opportunity for Parliament to question any action of the Assembly which it believes to be potentially incompatible?
Secondly, there is the legal point. International obligations are matters of fact and of law and, therefore, are capable of resolution by the judicial process. It seems to us that that process would be the most appropriate way of deciding whether, in the words of subsection (2) (a),


any action proposed to be taken by the Assembly would be incompatible with Community obligations or any other international obligations of the United Kingdom".
Indeed, the Government took that view in their White Paper "Our Changing Democracy", published in 1975. That states in paragraph 91 that
international obligation is essentially a matter of fact and law (often involved and technical) rather than of general political judgment".
I agree. So why not refer it to the body most experienced in making such judgments—the courts? It seemed that at one stage the Government thought that, but they have now changed their mind. I wonder whether the Government's experience in relation to their appearances in court in connection with television licences, Laker Airways or comprehensive schools has anything to do with their change of mind. It certainly seems to the Opposition that the matters referred to in subsection (2) could and should be resolved by the courts.
5.45 p.m.
Fourthly—I shall not dwell on this matter because of time—there is the question of enforcement, which has been raised by a number of hon. Members. It is not the same as with a local authority. The House of Commons has imposed upon local authorities duties and responsibilities which they are expected and, indeed, required to carry out. What is more, the House of Commons took powers to enforce the law in that respect and to insist that those duties and responsibilities were carried out. For example, there is the power to surcharge councillors who are found to have failed in their responsibilities. Apparently there is no machinery here to enforce that what is required to be done will be done. That point was made by a number of hon. Members of trust that the Minister of State will have something to say about that matter.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pym: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me on this occasion if I do not give way to him. I said that I would sit down at quarter to six, and I must do so in one minute to be fair to the Minister of State, unless, of course, he is prepared to give us another day or days so that we may debate these matters more fully.
The main objection must be the effect of the Bill on Parliament, and particularly on the House of Lords. We think that the seemingly innocent, minor-sounding proposals in the clause are sinister and highly significant and certainly ought not to be in the Bill. Our amendments seek to remove them.
There is the further important point about placing sole reliance on the Secretary of State and excluding Parliament in the way proposed. Our amendments are designed to try to remedy those weaknesses and to improve the clause, with the whole of which we disagree, as the Committee knows. I hope that in that spirit, minor though in a way the amendments are but not minor in relation to the House of Lords, the Government will feel able at this stage to show a certain amount of sympathy with and understanding of our point of view, other than their own, and to accept the amendments.

Mr. John Smith: Before I deal with the main points raised by right hon, and hon. Members, I should like to add my congratulations to the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). We always knew that he was learned, but it is nice to have that view confirmed by another body which permits us so to describe him.
The hon, and learned Gentleman introduced this series of amendments. Having congratulated him, in the best spirit of the House of Commons I now seek to criticise him. I was puzzled why he made no reference to Amendments Nos. 230 and 235. Having dealt with some other points in his speech, the hon, and learned Gentleman left his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) with the invidious task of trying to gallop through an explanation of amendments which cover a fair part of the Notice Paper, which are very complicated and which the Opposition did not think were important enough to deal with at the beginning of the debate. It was open to the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby to address his mind to Amendments Nos. 230 and 235 as well as to the other amendments which he introduced. Indeed, it is common practice in Committee of the House, when introducing a batch of amendments, if they are of any importance at all, to refer to all the amendments so that the Committee


clearly understands what is in the mind of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Pym: That is a monstrous complaint. Apart from the fact that we are limited on time, numerous amendments of a genuine kind from another part of the Committee will not be debated at all. If we were to take time going into the details of the selected amendments, that would delay matters even further. It is not a fair point for the Minister to make.

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman must know that it is a perfectly fair point. Amendments Nos. 230 and 235 must be of less importance than the other amendments or they would have been referred to. The right hon. Gentleman should not get too shirty about it. If he wants amendments to be taken seriously by the Government, he should not introduce the arguments for them towards the end of a fairly rapid speech. There was plenty of time in the debate. Indeed, he probably missed the opportunity of hearing the valuable comments of other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, because these matters were not referred to earlier.
The main burden of the debate has been on the question of the House of Lords. There is a provision in the Bill that if the House of Commons approves an override order or direction made by the Secretary of State and the House of Lords disagrees with it the House of Commons can overturn the House of Lords decision.
Let us examine the consequences of deleting the provision from the Bill. It means that if the House of Commons approves a resolution made by the Secretary of State and the House of Lords declines to approve the motion in that House we should have a real recipe for conflict. This Parliament would be being overruled by the unelected House of Lords. That appears to be the position that the Conservatives wish to see.
The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) referred to the appearance of this proposition in the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. The hon. Member is correct to say that that provision is substantially the same as the one in the Bill. I do not follow the argument that we should preserve intact the powers of the House of Lords in this Bill until there is a

general review of the relationship between the two Houses. I do not see why, until that happens, all the privileges, justified or unjustified, in the other Chamber should remain intact, especially when we are introducing an important constitutional change which affects the relationship between subordinate Assemblies in Scotland and Wales and Parliament. This seems to be an excellent time to review the powers of the House of Lords.
We have been accused of a flight into unicameralism. That was the description used by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. I should have thought that this was a sensible preservation of the rights of the elected House in relation to the other Assemblies. We have heard much about recipes for conflict in these devolution debates and I can think of nothing more redolent of conflict than to allow a situation to develop between the elected House and the unelected Chamber along the Corridor which cannot be resolved when they reach different conclusions.
There are provisions in the Bill for dealing with conflict arising because of an action taken by the Assembly on a reserved United Kingdom matter. Action can be taken by the Secretary of State which requires the approval of the House of Commons.
Once again we see the Conservative Opposition making a last-ditch attempt to try to preserve for ever and a day the powers of the House of Lords. They know that the House of Lords will always operate in favour of them. They know that the House of Lords is a check, not on them, but on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Minister does not seem to be addressing himself to the situation where the House of Commons is in conflict with the House of Lords and the Assembly.

Mr. Smith: We are dealing here with the situation in which there is a resolution approved by the House of Commons but not approved by the House of Lords. The Bill provides that the House of Commons shall prevail. I should have thought that it was now elementary democratic politics that where there is a conflict between the Lords and the Commons the House of Commons should prevail.
The Conservative Party is seeking not only to deny that proposition—which I


should have thought it might be moving towards these days—but to allow a situation to develop where a conflict is bound to arise and which is incapable of resolution.

Mr. Leon Brittan: The Minister is ignoring an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). It is not a question of one's constitutional views simply as between the House of Commons and the House of Lords; one is talking about a difference of opinion between an Assembly, which is in itself an elected body, and another elected Assembly. This brings a completely new dimension into the debate. It does not automatically follow that when the will of the House of Commons is not shared by the House of Lords the will of the Commons prevails. That means that one is saying that the Welsh Assembly is not a democratic body and is one whose views can be ignored.

Mr. Smith: I find it hard to believe that the hon. Member can seriously advance such a proposition. We are dealing with a situation where the Secretary of State has obtained the approval of Parliament for taking corrective action on something which the Assembly has done which affects reserved matters and something for which the United Kingdom Government remains responsible. We are dealing with how that parliamentary control is to be exercised.
If we accepted the Conservative amendments there would be two forms of parliamentary control—a House of Commons control and a House of Lords control. We have a provision to resolve conflict.

Mr. Hooson: Are not the Opposition trying to promote a potentially unholy alliance between the Assembly in Cardiff and the House of Lords?

Mr. Smith: I thought that that might have been behind the reasoning of the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby, but I came to the conclusion that he was too sensible to adduce such an argument. The Conservative Party arrives at some odd views by accident rather than by design. That might be the situation in this case.
I was staggered at the prominence given to this amendment by members of the Conservative Front Bench. I was staggered to find that they were so uneducated

in the ways of democratic politics that they do not see the obvious necessity not only of overcoming conflicts but of securing that proper control rests with the Secretary of State and the House of Commons.
I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby suggested that we should dispense with the House of Lords completely. There is some force in such an argument. But the Opposition have not put down such an amendment. However, the Conservatives are seeking to strengthen the power of the House of Lords in a way which we believe to be unreasonable in relation to the Bill.
The argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire towards the end of the debate involved our international and European obligations. The Government's attitude is that we do not believe that it would be appropriate for the international obligations of the United Kingdom, compliance with which are day-to-day matters to be referred to the national courts. We believe that it would be better for the Secretary of State to make the decision about whether something that the Assembly is doing is or is not in compliance with the international obligations of the United Kingdom Government. It would be the Government's obligations that would be at issue, and we do not believe that it would be right to refer them to a national court, particularly in the way suggested in the amendment—by action instituted by the Attorney-General. If the hon. Member thought that this matter was more important, no doubt he would have addressed himself to it when he began the debate.
Opposition Members should not feel so guilty when they find that they are caught out. Someone forgot to move the amendment and someone else had to move it later on. That is the most likely explanation and hon. Members opposite should not try to cover it up.

Mr. Pym: That is not true.

Mr. Smith: If that is not true, I withdraw the suggestion and I substitute the alternative charge—to which I hope the right hon. Member will plead guilty—that he thought it so unimportant that he did not address himself to it.

Mr. Brittan: The question is incapable of being answered.

Mr. Smith: It is capable of answer. We believe that it is more appropriate for international obligations to be decided by the Government responsible to Parliament than to be referred to the national courts.
The other argument was that there should be an initiative in Parliament to decide whether an action of the Assembly should be overruled. A number of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate greatly overestimated the powers of control contained in Clause 35. They do not entitle the Secretary of State to act on each and every occasion on which he has a disagreement about policy. Clause 35 makes it clear that any action must relate to a reserved matter for which the United Kingdom remains responsible.
If the Assembly takes action which is contrary to a United Kingdom interest there must be control. There must be control of this type in any shared Government such as that proposed by devolution. The Secretary of State would also have to obtain the approval of Parliament. That would be a disincentive to him making frequent use of it. We do not

envisage that the power will be used frequently, but it is necessary as a constitutional longstop.

The opportunity has been taken in the debate to make wide-ranging comments on the whole concept of devolution. But here we are dealing with specific amendments to the override clauses. I see no merit in the proposition that seeks to increase the powers of the House of Lords beyond those contained in the Bill. The House of Lords has a role to play, but it should not be in a position to block the will of the House of Commons in this matter.

The other matters that have been advanced—

It being Six o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [1st March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 145, Noes 170.

Division No. 154]
AYES
[6.00 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Alison, Michael
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Forman, Nigel
Mates, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mather, Carol


Awdry, Daniel
Fox, Marcus
Maude, Angus


Bell, Ronald
Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Benyon, W.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Monro, Hector


Biffen, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gray, Hamish
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Blaker, Peter
Grist, Ian
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bottomley, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neave, Airey


Brittan, Leon
Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Brooke, Peter
Hicks, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Buck, Antony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, John (Harrow West)


Budgen, Nick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Channon, Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Percival, Ian


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Cockcroft, John
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cope, John
Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Drayson, Burnaby
Knox, David
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Dunlop, John
Lamont, Norman
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dykes, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rhodes, James R.


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lloyd, Ian
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Luce, Richard
Ridsdale, Julian


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Macfarlane, Neil
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)




Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Sproat, Iain
Warren, Kenneth


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stainton, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Sainsbury, Tim
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wells, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Shepherd, Colin
Tebbitt, Norman



Sims, Roger
Temple Morris, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Speed, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Spence, John
Viggers, Peter





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Grant John (Islington C)
Palmer, Arthur


Anderson, Donald
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pardoe, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Grocott, Bruce
Park, George


Ashton, Joe
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Penhaligon, David


Atkinson, Norman
Hayman, Mrs Helena
Phipps, Dr Colin


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Heffer, Eric s.
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hooiey, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Bates, Alf
Hooson, Emlyn
Radice, Giles


Bean, R. E.
Horam, John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Huckfield, Les
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rogers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, J. W.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Paul B.


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rowlands, Ted


Bradley, Tom
Janner, Greville
Sandelson, Neville


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Sedgemore, Brian


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Campbell, Ian
John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silverman, Julius


Cartwright, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Snape, Peter


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spearing, Nigel


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Spriggs, Leslie


Cowans, Harry
Kelley, Richard
Stallard, A. W


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Kerr, Russell
Steel, Rt Hon David


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lamborn, Harry
Stoddart, David


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Leadbitter, Ted
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Litterick, Tom
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Tierney, Sydney


Doig, Peter
MacCormick, Iain
Tinn, James


Dormand, J. D.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Edge, Geoff
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mackintosh, John P.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


English, Michael
Madden, Max
Watkins, David


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Watkinson, John


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Weetch, Ken


Evans, Ioan (Aberoare)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Whitehead, Phillip


Evans, John (Newton)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Whitlock, William


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mendelson, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Molloy, William
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Freud, Clement
Oakes, Gordon



George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Golding, John
Ovenden, John
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Padley, Walter
Mr. Frank R. White.

Question accordingly negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Six o'clock.

Question put, That part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 167. Noes 145.

Division No. 155]
AYES
[6.13 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Ashton, Joe
Bain, Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Donald
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)


Armstrong, Ernest
Atkinson, Norman
Bean, R. E.




Beith, A. J.
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hooson, Emlyn
Penhaligon, David


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Horam, John
Phipps, Dr Colin


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Huckfield, Les
Price, William (Rugby)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Radice, Giles


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rogers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Campbell, Ian
Janner, Greville
Rooker, J. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rose, Paul B.


Cartwright, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sedgemore, Brian


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silverman, Julius


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skinner, Dennis


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Kaufman, Gerald
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kelley, Richard
Snape, Peter


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kerr, Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)
Lamborn, Harry
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Leadbitter, Ted
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lee, John
Stoddart, David


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stott, Roger


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dormand, J. D.
Litterick, Tom
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Edge, Geoff
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
MacCormick, Iain
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tierney, Sydney


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Madden, Max
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Evans, John (Newton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Watkins, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Watkinson, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo. Ian
Weetch, Ken


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Whitehead, Phillip


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kllbride)
Whitlock, William


Forrester, John
Molloy, William
Wigley, Dafydd


George, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Golding. John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grant, John (Islington C)
Oakes. Gordon
Woof, Robert


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Grocott, Bruce
Ovenden, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Harper, Joseph
Padley, Walter



Harrison. Rt Hon Walter
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hayman, Mrs Helena
Pardoe, John
Mr. Frank R. White and


Heffer, Eric S.
Park, George
Mr. Alf Bates.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cope, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Alison, Michael
Cormack, Patrick
Hayhoe, Barney


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hicks, Robert


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Holland, Philip


Awdry, Daniel
Drayson, Burnaby
Hordern, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Duntop, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Dykes, Hugh
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Edwaras, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Benyon, W.
Emery, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fairgrieve, Russell
James, David


Biffen, John
Fell, Anthony
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Biggs-Davison, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Bottomley, Peter
Forman, Nigel
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Coyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fox, Marcus
Knox, David


Brittan, Leon
Fry, Peter
Lamont, Norman


Brooke, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Brotherton, Michael
Glyn Dr Alan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Godber Rt Hon Joseph
Luce, Richard


Buck, Antony
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Budgen, Nick
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Macfarlane, Neil


Channon, Paul
Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Cockcroft, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mates, Michael


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mather, Carol







Maude, Angus
Pink, R. Bonner
Skeet, T. H. R.


Mawby, Ray
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Speed, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Spence, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Sproat, Iain


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stainton, Keith


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Raison, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Molyneaux, James
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Monro, Hector
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Stradling Thomas. J.


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rhodes, James R.
Tebbit, Norman


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Temple Morris, Peter


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Ridsdale, Julian
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mudd, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Neave, Airey
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Viggers, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Ross, William (Londonderry)



Neubert, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Weatherill, Bernard


Newton, Tony
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wells, John


Onslow, Cranley
Royle, Sir Anthony
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Page, John (Harrow West)
Sainsbury, Tim



Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Page, Richard (Workington)
Shepherd, Colin
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Percival, Ian
Sims, Roger
Mr. Peter Morrison.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 36 and 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5

RESERVED LOCAL MATTERS

Amendment made: No. 296, in page 63, line 34, column 1, at end insert

'Building regulations'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38

INDUSTRIAL AND ECONOMIC GUIDELINES

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 161, Noes 145.

Division No. 156]
AYES
[6.25 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Dempsey, James
Janner, Greville


Anderson, Donald
Doig, Peter
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Armstrong, Ernest
Dormand, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Ashton, Joe
Edge, Geoff
John, Brynmor


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Atkinson, Norman
English, Michael
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bates, Alf
Evans, John (Newton)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bean, R. E.
Faulds, Andrew
Kaufman, Gerald


Beith, A. J.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kelley, Richard


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr, Russell


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lamborn, Harry


Boardman, H.
Ford, Ben
Lamond, James


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Forrester, John
Lee, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Freud, Clement
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
George, Bruce
Litterick, Tom


Bradley, Tom
Golding, John
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
MacCormick, Iain


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grant, John (Islington C)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Campbell, Ian
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Carmichael, Neil
Grocott, Bruce
Madden, Max


Cartwright, John
Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cohen, Stanley
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Cowans, Harry
Hooson Emlyn
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Horam, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Molloy, William


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Huckfield, Les
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ovenden, John




Padley, Walter
Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Palmer, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Pardoe, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Watkins, David


Parker, John
Snape, Peter
Watkinson, John


Penhaligon, David
Spearing, Nigel
Weetch, Ken


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Spriggs, Leslie
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Price, William (Rugby)
Stallard, A. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


Radice, Giles
Steel, Rt Hon David
Whitlock, William


Robinson, Geoffrey
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wigley, Dafydd


Roderick, Caerwyn
Stoddart, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Stott, Roger
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Rogers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woof, Robert


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Rowlands, Ted
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)



Sedgemore, Brian
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tierney, Sydney
Mr. James Tina and


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Mr. Thomas Cox.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Neubert, Michael


Alison, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Newton, Tony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gray, Hamish
Onslow, Cranley


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Grist, Ian
Page, John (Harrow West)


Awdry, Daniel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard (Workington)


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Havers. Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hayhoe, Barney
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Benyon, W.
Hicks, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Berry, Hon Anthony
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biffen, John
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Timothy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bottomley, Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhodes, James R.


Brittan, Leon
James, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brooke, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brotherton, Michael
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buck, Antony
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Budgen, Nick
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Channon, Paul
Knox, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lamont, Norman
Royle, Sir Anthony


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sainsbury, Tim


Cockcroft, John
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shepherd, Colin


Cope, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


Cormack, Patrick
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Speed, Keith


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sproat, Iain


Drayson, Burnabv
Mates, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Dunlop, John
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dykes, Hugh
Maude, Angus
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas. J.


Elliott, Sir William
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbitt, Norman


Emery, Peter
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Temple Morris, Peter


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fell, Anthony
Molyneaux, James
Townsend, Cyril D.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Monro, Hector
Viggers, Peter


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Moore, John (Croydon C)



Forman, Nigel
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wells, John


Fox, Marcus
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Fry, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)



Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neave, Airey
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Nelson, Anthony
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 disagreed to.

Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.

Clause 42

WELSH CONSOLIDATED FUND AND LOANS FUND

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move Amendment No. 239, in page 15, line 31, leave out from "Fund" to end of line 35.
The clause has something positively Biblical about it:"
There shall be a Welsh Consolidated Fund".
One is tempted to add "and the Ministers saw that it was good, and on the seventh day they rested." But there is a good deal of labour—and the referendum—to come before they can contemplate that.
Inevitably, the financial provisions are the centre-piece of the Bill, and an examination of them may reveal a good deal about the nature of the legislation. When, shortly, I hope, we come to debate whether Clause 42 should be part of the Bill, there will be a great many questions to be considered.
First, however, and very briefly, we have an amendment which asks a simple question: why have two funds? We can understand that
There shall be a Welsh Consolidated Fund.
It is a very credible proposition that there shall be a Welsh Loans Fund. It is, of course, a distinct possibility that an Assembly should decide to have both of them. But why should Parliament insist in such stentorian terms on this particular bookkeeping exercise? Bookkeeping exercise it is, no more and no less.
Separate funds may be created in this grandiloquent way, but at any time the Executive Committee—that is to say, the Welsh Cabinet;—it is good to be reminded so clearly by the clause of the nature of the Executive Committee—or the Welsh Government, call it what we will, can, under subsection (2) of the clause, transfer sums from one fund to another whenever it pleases. It can apparently transfer up to the full £250 million that can be advanced to the Welsh Loans Fund from the National Loans Fund. The treasurer can, if he wishes, stand in the centre of the Coal Exchange and juggle the funds—tossing money from one to the other—until committee Members feel sick at the sight of his dexterity. At least, it will be an improvement on the occupation reported in the Welsh Press on 1st April, when we were informed—admittedly, before midday on that particular date—that there would be a bilingual bingo hall in the Assembly to amuse the Members. Bilingual bingo and juggling are likely to ensure that there will be a roaring demand for membership of the Assembly.
There are, apparently, to be no controls over this switching of funds. As I understand it, the Welsh Auditor General cannot stop it. He can stop payment out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund. That is provided in Clause 43. Under Clause 45, he can stop payment out of the Welsh Loans Fund. But in neither case do his powers extend to transfers between the two funds. The only explanation given to us for the creation of these two separate funds is contained in paragraph 230 of the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy", which states:
Capital expenditure by local authorities and by other public bodies in devolved fields will continue to be financed by borrowing. Local authorities will continue to have access to the Public Works Loan Board. Other public bodies will have access to a new Welsh Loans Fund for longer-term borrowing, financed from the National Loans Fund and controlled by the Assembly. The main condition on its use will be that on-lending should not be at a lower rate of interest than the corresponding loan from the National Loans Fund.

Mr. Dalyell: With regard to the question of a roaring demand for the Welsh Assembly, can it be a matter of record that the roaring demand from the Labour Back Benches consists of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), for Aberdare (Mr. Evans)—who likes the idea about as much as I do—and for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who wants something very different from the Government?

Mr. Edwards: That is absolutely right, but that has been the position throughout the proceedings on the Bill. We have one additional Member on the Government Benches. We welcome the fact that a Treasury Minister from Wales will reply to the debates on these financial provisions. If it was not for that, the numbers attending the debate would be even thinner.
The use of the Welsh Loans Fund is, therefore, apparently to be confined to loans to public bodies other than local authorities and is controlled by Clause 45. But, as I have already pointed out, that clause does not limit the interchange-ability of the funds—the juggling operation which the Assembly is free to carry out. It is also true that Clause 47 states:
Payments … into the Welsh Loans Fund shall be deemed to be advances … and shall be repayable


and subject to interest. As I see it, we do not have to create a separate fund to ensure that certain payments into it are repayable and subject to interest. If the Minister doubts that statement—if his credit is good enough—he had better go to see his bank manager to discover whether certain payments into his current account might not be repayable and subject to interest.
This is a little curious. I put it no higher than that. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, Ministers have lectured us on how wrong it is for Parliament to dictate to the Assembly, which is to be a free and independent body. Yet here, on what appears to be an unimportant point on a matter of administration—on a matter concerned only with the way in which it keeps its books—there is the portentous pronouncement that "There shall be two funds, not one. Man and woman created He both."
The difference is that man and woman were not interchangeable. They both had an essential part to play. If a single fund, instead of two funds, had been created by the Bill, there would have been no difference at all. Therefore, before we get on to the major issues raised by the clause, I ask two simple questions. Why insist in the Bill on separate funds, and why be so dictatorial about it?

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to ask two questions at this stage. The first concerns the nature of the Executive. I have regularly attended every debate on the Wales Bill. Forgive me if I am ignorant, but I am still not at all clear about the nature of the Executive—about the nuts and bolts. Indeed, we never got round to discussing the nuts and bolts of the so-called Scottish Cabinet.
It is right that one should ask these questions of a Treasury Minister, because he has to deal with the Civil Service aspects. Is it intended that the Executive should comprise full-time Members or part-time Members? Is it at all clear whether Members of the Welsh Assembly are to be full-time or part-time? If they are full-time, what on earth are they going to find to do for 37 weeks of the year, five days a week? If they are part-time, it throws a very different light on all these matters which we are discussing.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I was hoping that during the Easter Recess the hon. Gentleman would have reflected upon his interventions during these debates on devolution. He must not get annoyed, but there is no question but that what he is saying with regard to this amendment is absolutely irrelevant and is out of order.

Mr. Dalyell: Sir Myer, I am simply asking for information about—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. But it is not appropriate to ask for it at this stage. That is my point.

Mr. Dalyell: Sir Myer—

The First Deputy Chairman: On a point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall be brief. Am I not entitled to ask precisely what will be the nature of the Executive that we are discussing, because it is crucial to the amendment? Indeed, the whole question of the nature of the Civil Service is crucial to the amendment. I am asking factual questions as to the nature of the Executive and whether the Secretary of State will have his own Civil Service—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has addressed the question to me. The amendment deals with the question of whether there will be a Welsh Loans Fund. That is what we are discussing. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman uses every amendment to ask questions which he himself knows are wholly irrelevant to the amendments under discussion.

Mr. Dalyell: Sir Myer, the amendment is certainly about a Welsh Loans Fund. But subsection (2) of the clause states:
The Executive Committee of the Assembly may from time to time cause sums to be transferred from one to the other of those Funds.
I am simply asking who does it and what is the nature of their jobs.

Sir Raymond Gower: I, too, would like to ask the Minister what is the reason for having this arrangement of the two Welsh funds. I can imagine the reason for having some money dealt with by the Consolidated Fund and some money by a Loans Fund, but it would appear from what my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) said in his introductory speech that there can be a regular


movement of money from the Welsh Consolidated Fund to the Welsh Loans Fund and, presumably, back again. That really does seem to be an extraordinarily strange position.
In each case, payments can be made out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund and the Welsh Loans Fund only in accordance with certain credits granted on the fund by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General. In the case of payments out of the Consolidated Fund—the conditions are laid down in Clause 43—and in the case of the Loans Fund, under Clause 45 it is prescribed that these payments shall be granted at the request of the Executive Committee of the Assembly.
This could be done in a number of ways. It could be done in the form prescribed in the Bill with a separate Welsh Consolidated Fund and a Welsh Loans Fund. It could be done by relying on the general Consolidated Fund for the whole of the United Kingdom and a separate Welsh Loans Fund, or it could be done with one single fund. These are the main alternatives. I wonder what reason there is for the particular formula in the Bill, because it seems somewhat cumbersome. I may be misinterpreting the arrangements, but I believe that the objective could be achieved in a simpler way.

Mr. Ioan Evans: We are dealing with the financial provisions of the Bill and the establishment and management of the Welsh Funds. The amendment seeks to delete the second part of Clause 42, which states:
The Executive Committee of the Assembly may from time to time cause sums to be transferred from one to the other of those Funds.
Before we come to the question of the functions of the Executive Committee of the Assembly, I want to raise one or two questions about the identifiable public expenditure per head that is coming into Wales. Under the present arrangements in agriculture, the identifiable public expenditure per head is £29 in Wales compared with £15 in England. Therefore, Wales is better off.
In trade and industry and employment, the identifiable public expenditure per head is £65 for Wales compared with £30 for England. Therefore, we are far better off under the existing arrangements. Similarly, with Government lending to the nationalised industries the amount of

expenditure per head for England is minus £3 compared with £31 for Wales. Once again, we are much better off. On roads and transport, expenditure in Wales is £52 a head compared with £4 in England.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Evans: I shall give way to the hon. Member, but I hope that his intervention on this occasion is not as misleading as on the previous occasion. When he last intervened, he asked about the views of my council as though he had more up-to-date information than I had But as I told him on that occasion the Cynon Valley Borough Council has thrown out the White Paper on this Bill. He should apologise for his last interruption.

Mr. Thomas: I shall not be drawn into a discussion on my previous interventions in this debate. Will the hon. Member give the per capita figures for housing in England and Wales?

Mr. Evans: I knew that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) would come to that. On this side of the Committee we want a fair and complete examination of the proposals before us. The trouble with the Plaid Cymru Party is that its Members scrape up the worst possible statistics, whereas we like to give a complete picture. If the hon. Member is patient, I shall come to the sectors of public expenditure in which Wales is at a disadvantage. I must add that his intervention on the last occasion was completely misleading, and I thought that he would have had the grace to apologise for a wrong interruption.
On education, libraries, science and the arts, the identifiable public expenditure per head is £152 in Wales and £149 in England. On health and personal social services, it is £131 in Wales as compared with £129 in England. On social security—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am quite sure that the hon. Member knows that this has nothing to do with the question. The amendment raises the simple question of whether there should be one fund or two.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Would not the points being made by the hon. Member for


Aberdare (Mr. Evans) be wholly appropriate in the next debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill?

The First Deputy Chairman: I agree entirely. His remarks would be more appropriate then.

Mr. Evans: I accept your ruling, Sir Myer. I shall continue with my argument then.
What we are debating is the fact that the Executive Committee of the Assembly may from time to time cause sums to be transferred from one fund to another. The argument I am putting forward is this. Where is the extra expenditure to come from if not from the Consolidated Fund? I suggest that we would then need to think in terms of having this Welsh Loans Fund. If the Welsh Assembly is to be limited in public spending, which at the moment is far greater in Wales than in England, it will need power to raise money. Then we are dealing with the question of whether the Executive Committee would have to transfer funds from one fund to another. That is the point I want to make. Am I in order if I proceed along those lines?

The First Deputy Chairman: No. The hon. Member should keep it until the clause stand part debate.

Sir David Renton: I wish to seek information about the significance of the two funds. Before doing so, I must point out that I tried to get the information from the Explanatory Memorandum, but it is remarkably uninformative. It runs to half a page for the whole of Part V of the Bill, which contains eight pages of complicated clauses on financial matters.
I remind the Minister that the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, which reported nearly three years ago and which the Government have largely ignored, said—and both Houses accepted this—that more explanation should be given of the contents of Bills brought before the House, especially those Bills that were complicated and related to financial matters. If ever there was a case when the House of Commons deserved to be better informed by the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, this is it.
Being unable to find an explanation in the Financial Memorandum, I must

ask the Minister whether I have understood the position correctly. I take the reference to the Welsh Consolidated Fund to mean the annual block grant and the way in which that grant is to be placed in a fund at the disposal of the Welsh Assembly. I assume that that grant will be for expenditure mainly on current account but to some extent, no doubt, also on capital account. That matter should be clarified.
Clause 42(2) says that:
The Executive Committee of the Assembly may from time to time cause sums to be transferred from one to the other of those Funds.
That provision has several implications which we should try to understand. If I am wrong in my view, perhaps I may be told where I have gone wrong.
7.0 p.m.
The first implication is that if the Assembly finds that its block grant paid into the Consolidated Fund is not large enough, it can get round that by getting the money out of the Welsh Loans Fund. That Loans Fund will be an indirect, perhaps surreptitious, way of topping up the Consolidated Fund and of getting money for current expenditure, even though Parliament in its Estimates when considering the amount to be paid into the Consolidated Fund has not approved that expenditure. It appears to me that that is a way of getting round the decision of Parliament.
Let me take the converse possibility—namely, the payment of money from the Welsh Consolidated Fund to the Welsh Loans Fund. One assumes that that would occur only if rather more money than was needed had been paid into the Consolidated Fund by way of block grant and that there was some surplus cash. Those concerned would not want to part with that money and would pay it into the Loans Fund—in other words, they would make a loan to themselves.
Why should we have such contrivances? The House of Commons is accustomed to voting large sums of money to the Government and we do so in a fairly straightforward way. The Consolidated Fund plays a very important part in the process, but we do not encourage Government Departments—which are, so to speak, under our direct supervision—to jolly things along in the way I have described. We say to Government Departments "We have approved these


Estimates and in due course they will be subject to appropriations-in-aid". If we find that there is not enough and loans have to be raised by one means or another, we do not say to the Department "Pay the money into your departmental account in the ordinary way". The loan is expected to be for some specific purpose for which the Minister is accountable to Parliament. I am not a financier—I am a lawyer—but it seems to me that the Welsh Assembly will have a privileged financial opportunity which is not enjoyed by Government Departments.

Sir Raymond Gower: No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will have noted that by Clause 47(1) such funds are referred to as
such sums as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine".
We see in subsection (4) that the sums will not exceed £250 million.

Sir D. Renton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out, because to that extent it completes the picture, but it does not answer completely either of my two main points.
I am very much in the hands of the Chair in discussing whether the idea of a Welsh Loans Fund should be excluded. One should be clear in one's mind how the amounts of payments into the Consolidated Fund and the Welsh Loans Fund are to be determined and by what principles. We know from later clauses and from the Explanatory Memorandum that it will be the Secretary of State who, with the Treasury's consent, will be the responsible Minister in deciding how much is to be paid into those funds. But surely we should also determine on what broad principles the Secretary of State will make this annual decision—or, in the case of loans, it may be more frequent than an annual decision as long as it does not exceed £250 million in aggregate in regard to the Loans Fund.
Those are the questions to which we require answers so that we may be able to deal with the amendment, understand the clause and be clear in our minds about the implications of the clauses that follow. I hope that the Minister will give the necessary explanations.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to

the latter part of Clause 45(1), which states:
No payment shall be made out of the Welsh Loans Fund except in accordance with credits granted on the Fund by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General; but this subsetion does not apply to transfers under Section 42(2) above".

Sir D. Renton: My hon. Friend for Conway (Mr. Roberts) has a more adventurous disposition that I have. He referred to Clause 45, and there are various questions on the implications of those provisions on which we shall ask various questions in due course. For the time being I am trying to confine my remarks to Clause 42, and it might be better if I did not answer my hon. Friend's comment now.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The longer one listens to this debate, the more extraordinary the arrangement seems. Each intervention produces evidence that goes against the arrangement proposed in the Bill.
Why have two funds under which money can be swapped from one to the other under Clause 42(2)? Why have two funds when, although one fund may have an aggregate outstanding which should not exceed £250 million, that fund can borrow from the other fund? Why have two funds when, under Clause 48, short-term borrowings can be undertaken and such borrowings can be undertaken by swapping from one fund to the other? It appears to me that the whole arrangement is not simply cumbersome but is much more bureaucratic than it needs to be, and that it is likely to add considerably to the cost of administration.
Perhaps there are good reasons for this arrangement, and, if there are, no doubt we shall hear them given in due course by the Minister. If there are good reasons, why on earth are they not included in the Explanatory Memorandum? If they were included, we would not have needed this probing amendment. This is of considerable importance when we are subjected to a guillotine. With a guillotine, the argument for the Explanatory Memorandum being full and comprehensive is strengthened.
We have been landed with this legislation but without adequate explanation. In effect, we are being told "Accept it as it is". I trust that the Minister will be


able to produce some explanation of why it has been suggested that there should be two funds. Perhaps what has been said will persuade the Minister, even if he cannot accept this amendment, to put forward later amendments to ensure that there will be only one fund.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): Perhaps I may try to assist the Committee by explaining the reasons for this clause, although strictly directing my remarks to the amendment. The amendment seeks to delete everything after the word "Fund" in Clause 42. The effect of the amendment, which apparently is now a probing amendment, would be to do away with the Welsh Loans Fund. As a consequence, subsection (2) would fall anyway because there would not be any other fund into which to switch money.
Several hon. Members have asked why there should be two funds. This point has been answered, at least by implication. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) answered the question, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). The Consolidated Fund is in receipt of Government grants for capital and some current expenditure. The Welsh Loans Fund is the devolved corollary of the National Loans Fund. I am sure that Tory Members would not wish to mix up a fund which is in receipt of grants with a fund which has the purpose of borrowing money and paying interest. It is to some extent a bookkeeping exercise, as the hon. Member for Pembroke said. He described it as such in a pejorative sense.
The Tory Party is not, apparently, interested in bookkeeping and does not want to see something done properly. It is somehow bad to have proper financial mechanisms and control. We saw what happened when the Tories were in Government. We saw their failure in financial control.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: If we are setting up what is supposed to be an independent, democratic national Assembly, why is it necessary to insist exactly upon the structure of the bookkeeping at this stage in the proceedings?

Mr. Davies: Because it is right that the House of Commons, which is the

sovereign body of the United Kingdom, should have a say in this and that the Act which sets up the Assembly should also set up these most important mechanisms. We think that these mechanisms, dealing with the control of money, to which expenditure is to be devolved and how it is to be controlled, are important. These are matters which should be covered in the Bill and should be debated here.

Mr. Kinnock: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's general sentiments about expenditure control. Can he tell us on what basis the Consolidated Fund is to be calculated as this seems to be a central question posed by this and subsequent clauses?

Mr. Davies: Whether it is a central question posed by this clause I will leave to your discretion, Sir Myer. I beg to differ with my hon. Friend. It is a central question to other parts of the Bill. Here we are concerned with the mechanism. I have explained what the mechanism is. Grants go to the Consolidated Fund, loans to the Welsh Loans Fund.

Mr. Ian Grist: I do not quite follow that because Clause 48 (2) provides:
Sums borrowed by the Assembly shall be paid into the Welsh Loans Fund or the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
It carries on in that style.

Mr. Davies: We shall no doubt come to Clause 48. That clause deals with temporary, short-term borrowing, which is different from the kind of borrowing we speak of when we talk about the National Loans Fund and its corollary, the Welsh Loans Fund. The Welsh Loans Fund has been set up because there are certain bodies which at the moment have their borrowing done for them by the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury. These bodies are listed in Clause 50(3). These bodies can borrow with the consent of the Secretary of State, or perhaps the Secretary of State borrows for them, from the National Loans Fund. They then use the borrowed money for authorised purposes.
7.15 p.m.
Since, in future, control over those bodies listed in Clause 50(3) will be transferred from the Secretary of State to the


Assembly it will not be appropriate constitutionally for them to borrow direct from the National Loans Fund because the National Loans Fund is responsible to the House and so is the Secretary of State. Since the Assembly would be controlling the borrowing of these bodies it is necessary that the Assembly should borrow from the Welsh Loans Fund. If we follow through these clauses, it will be seen that the Secretary of State has recourse to the National Loans Fund, which is responsible to the House of Commons. Its activities can be looked at by the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General. We have a mirror image of that in the Welsh Assembly. These bodies will borrow from the Welsh Loans Fund through the Welsh Assembly which will be controlling their borrowing. The scrutiny of the Welsh Loans Fund will fall to the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General.

Sir Raymond Gower: I believe that the Minister of State has gone some way to explaining the situation. Would it not be preferable, if there are to be two funds, that there should not be this transferability? In other words, if the money is granted from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom into the Welsh Consolidated Fund and other sums of money are transferred from the National Loans Fund into the Welsh Loans Fund, why is it necessary to have this distortion, this topping-up process as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) described it, which may arise because of the transferability?

Mr. Davies: I am coming to that point. The hon. Member for Pembroke rightly made the point that this transfer of money was only between the one fund and the other. It will be seen that money cannot be paid out for purposes other than the original purposes of the fund. In other words, if money is transferred from the Welsh Consolidated Fund to the Welsh Loans Fund—and I will give die reason for that in a moment—that money cannot be transferred out of those two funds except for the purposes for which it was paid into the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
In other words, one could not use grant money for loans out of the Welsh Loans Fund because the Comptroller and Auditor General has to issue a certificate and

the Assembly has to give the authorisation. The reason why there can be a transfer between the funds, not out of the funds, for purposes different from the original purpose connected with the giving of the money has to do with simple cash flow. One fund might be in surplus while another might be in deficit. Money may have been paid into the Welsh Consolidated Fund and no money may have been paid out because various authorisations were not needed. There might be a surplus in that fund and a deficit on the Welsh Loans Fund because money had been paid out and not borrowed One of the funds could go to the bank and get an overdraft to cover its cash problems.
Clause 48 deals with short-term borrowing. It is possible for a fund to borrow by way of overdraft or otherwise on a temporary basis to meet a cash problem because payments in and out may not match each other. Contract payments may not become due. To obviate the need for that, and, I would have thought, acting on the principles of good housekeeping which the Tory Party sometimes adheres to, if there is a surplus in one fund and a deficit in the other and money is needed, instead of one fund having to go to a bank and pay interest, the surplus from one fund can be transferred so that excessive interest charges do not have to be paid.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I can understand the point about getting back into balance a fund which was previously in deficit, but the Minister of State has said that moneys can be paid out of either fund only for the original purpose for which the moneys were provided. In other words, loan fund moneys can be paid out only for loans and Consolidated Fund loans can be paid out only for Consolidated Fund purposes. In those circumstances I do not see how one can conceivably make up the deficit in the other fund, because the fact that there is a deficit means that moneys have been paid out for other purposes. What the Minister is saying now is in direct contradiction to what he said in his previous sentence.

Mr. Davies: I am surprised at the financial innocence, if I may put it in a nice way, of Conservative Members. All I am saying is that in one of the funds


there may be a deficit and that it may have to borrow from the bank to cover the deficit on a short-term basis. Instead of having to do that, money can be put into the account which is in overdraft, which then eliminates the overdraft. The money does not go out of the fund. It is not used for any other purposes. It means that the bank does not get the interest on the overdraft. That is all.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman says that the money does not come out again having been transferred, but what happens if a positive decision is made to overdraw on the first fund so as to enable moneys from the other fund to be transferred to write off the overdraft?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is now becoming extremely clever and postulating all sorts of odd situations. Why should anybody wish to do that anyway? It is a simple proposition that here we have a Welsh Assembly with two funds and one happens to be in surplus and the other in deficit. If it evens them out, it does not have to pay interest to the bank.

Mr. Kinnock: Are we to depend on the fortuitous event of a surplus existing in one fund, that is to say, the Consolidated Fund? I understood my right hon. Friend to say that moneys cannot be moved from the loan fund into the Consolidated Fund. It can only be a one-way flow for this evening-out, debt-avoiding and overdraft-avoiding purpose. Are we to depend upon this coincidence of a surplus in one fund occurring at the same time as there is a deficit in the other?
Far from its being an extraordinary circumstance, does my right hon. Friend believe, against a background of today's realities, that it is likely to be a conventional situation or one which will arise with every other blue moon?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend began his intervention by saying that there could only be a one-way transfer of moneys from one fund to the other. There is positively a two-way transfer from the one fund to the other. How often this will happen I do not know. There is no way of knowing. But it is a safeguard to enable the Assembly—I am sure my

hon. Friend would agree with this—not to have to pay exorbitant interest charges that the bankers demand from time to time. It is to keep down the expenditure of the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it either wrong or over simplifying the matter to say that funds earmarked or authorised for one purpose are to be used for another purpose? Am I wrong in that proposition?

Mr. Davies: They will not be used for another purpose because the moneys cannot leave the fund for any purpose other than the original one. Moneys can be used to reduce an overdraft, but that is to discharge a debt to the bank—a debt of interest. It is not a payment out of the fund.

Mr. Kinnock: Other than when playing darts, I become confused at the mere mention of figures. As it is impossible and not tenable to use moneys for purposes other than those for which they have been allocated, can my right hon. Friend describe circumstances in which allocations made to the Welsh Assembly by the Treasury for the purpose of road expenditure are used to balance up a deficit in the loan fund simply because a road contractor has not sent in his bill on a monthly basis? Is that the situation we are considering, or is it more complex and esoteric?

Mr. Davies: It is perhaps simpler than that. My hon. Friend should not get carried away with the specific items of expenditure. We simply have in the one fund a surplus. That may be money not earmarked for any purpose except that it is a grant from the Government. In the other fund we have a deficit, for various reasons, which is quite possible when payments are moving in and out. It does not make sense. No company would operate on that basis. If a company had two bank accounts it would not keep one in surplus and one in deficit and incur interest on the one in deficit. No company would keep the one in surplus and the other in deficit and incur interest charges. This is a normal power given to the Welsh Assembly to obviate the need to pay out interest so that the money can go to road building and not to bankers.

Sir Raymond Gower: The Minister is saying in a very plausible way—to some


people in a reassuring way—that this is merely meant to stop an overdraft. He also made some fulminations about the bankers. But there is nothing in the Bill about overdrafts. There is nothing to say that the money is to be used only for overdraft purposes. That is merely the Minister's view.

Mr. Davies: It cannot be used for any other purpose. There is in the Bill something about overdrafts. There is a provision which the hon. Member for Pembroke mentioned. He said that the moneys cannot be transferred from the funds; they can be transferred only within the funds. To transfer the money out of the funds would require a certificate from the Auditor and Comptroller General and authorisation from the Assembly. The Assembly cannot authorise capital moneys to be used for any other purposes.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall not give way yet. I am answering the point raised by the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower). If the hon. Member for Pembroke is not satisfied he can make another intervention. The hon. Member for Pembroke said, quite rightly, that moneys cannot be paid out of the one fund without the authorisation of the Comptroller and Auditor General and, indeed, of the Welsh Assembly. This is provided for in Clauses 43, 44 and 45. There can be only a transfer between one fund and the other. Money can only be placed from the bank account of one fund into the bank account of the other. If the funds want to shift it backwards and forwards for no reason they can do it.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that if we did away with the Welsh Loans Fund we would make life difficult for whoever would be responsible for administering the finances of the Welsh Assembly? Why deny the Welsh people the right to have two funds to run a successful Assembly for the people of Wales?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. These worthy bodies have been approved by the House and they need a mechanism to borrow money for worthy capital expenditure. This clause provides them with that mechanism.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am genuinely seeking information. When I tabled the amendment, I thought that I was making a very innocent point in order to obtain information. It is in that spirit only that I intervene again. The Minister has satisfied us on all but one point, on which I still require guidance. It is a matter of interpretation of the Bill.
The Minister has made clear that money can be taken out of the funds only for specified purposes. I understand that in relation to the money while it is in the funds, but I am not clear where the Bill states that once money has been transferred it can still be used only for the original purpose for which it was restricted in the fund in which it was first placed.
When the money is in the loans fund, clearly it can be used only for loans fund purposes and when money is in the Consolidated Fund it can be used only for Consolidated Fund purposes. I am not clear where the Bill says that money transferred from the loans fund to the Consolidated Fund can still be used only for loans fund purposes.
If the Minister can satisfy me on that point, I shall be fully satisfied with his explanation.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will find the explanation in Clauses 43 to 45 where reservation is made in respect of transfers under Clause 42(2). In respect of any other transfers, credits must be granted by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Of course the money is still the money of the original fund and not the money of the other fund. That is why it cannot be used for any other purpose. The Assembly cannot authorise it to be used for any other purpose. The moneys have to be kept separate.

Sir David Renton: A good deal of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation appears rather more Irish than Welsh.
There is one point on which I am still perplexed. Despite there being nothing in the Bill about overdrafts, the Minister said—and it is a reasonable proposition—that high interest charges should not be incurred. But suppose the Consolidated Fund runs into deficit. To whom is the interest to be paid? Is not the interest, in any event, to be fixed by the Treasury? If the Welsh Loans Fund runs into deficit


to whom is that interest to be paid? Will the Treasury have any say in the amount of interest that is to be charged? On what relationship to the minimum lending rate will such interest charges be made.
As the Minister has based a part of his case on the threat of high interest charges, he should make clear what he really has in mind.

Mr. Davies: Perhaps we should start from Clause 48. Each fund has the power to borrow if it is in deficit, which it could very well be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty said. The contract payment may have to be paid when money has not come in. Normally the fund would have to borrow.
We are concerned here with short-term borrowing, although there is a limit on the amount. If it has to borrow, then it has to incur interest charges. Rather than having to pay interest charges, which may not always be exorbitant—I accept that there are beneficent bankers—if there is a surplus in one fund, one avoids the interest payments.

Sir David Renton: The Minister has sought refuge in Clause 48, though he told one of my hon. Friends, who relied upon it, that it was not relevant to the situation that arises under Clause 42. Clause 48 refers to short-term borrowing, and the Bill is rather more specific there than in these earlier clauses.
Is there anything in Clauses 43 to 47 which gives us any idea as to how the interest liability will be met or of the dilemma in which the executive committee of the Assembly may find itself as a result of having to pay what the Minister described as high interest charges that bankers make? Is it not a fact that all interest charges will be under the control of the Treasury?

Mr. Davies: No. In Clause 48 there is the power of short-term temporary borrowing, which the Treasury defines as borrowing for less than 12 months. I do not want to go into Clause 48 now. That deals with borrowing by overdraft from banks. I do not think that the Treasury gives overdrafts. To obviate the need for such borrowing, we have provided in Clause 42(2) that if there is a surplus in one fund, the Assembly will

not have to borrow by overdraft from the banks.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Why does the Comptroller and Auditor General not have to authorise or be informed of any transfer under Clause 42(2)?

Mr. Davies: Because it is purely a book transfer and a levelling out of the balance between one fund and another. The character of the money does not change. That character changes only when a certificate is given by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The original purpose of the money does not change until it goes out of the fund for purposes authorised by the Assembly.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My right hon. Friend has great knowledge about this subject and this is a complex financial matter. Unfortunately, it is likely that we shall not be able to debate Clause 48. My right hon. Friend has mentioned that under that clause the Assembly may borrow in sterling by way of overdraft to meet the eventuality of its expenditure exceeding its funds. The clause mentions that the principal of sums borrowed by the Assembly shall not exceed £35 million, but how is this to be controlled? If there are special circumstances, the amount could be well in excess of that figure. Will this mean that the Assembly will have to go into the red?

Mr. Davies: It would mean that the Assembly could not borrow any more. It can borrow up to £35 million and not a penny more. Clearly there must be financial rectitude in the Assembly, and that is why we were concerned to lay down a limit. However, this refers only to temporary borrowing by overdraft and not to borrowing for capital expenditure.
I presume that this is a probing amendment. We have had a useful debate and I hope that I have dealt with the points raised by hon. Members. If the Opposition seek to press the amendment, I urge the Committee to resist it.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I had not intended to speak again, but when we started on this little amendment I did not imagine that it would raise so many issues or that the explanations of the Minister of State would be so unsatisfactory. I am not fully satisfied with the answer that the Minister has given to


my last question. I have read the clauses again and I am not satisfied that there is anything to prevent the funds, once they have been transferred, being used for the purposes of the new fund rather than the original fund.
I think that the proper course is to consider carefully what the Minister has said and to leave the matter for the moment. If we are not satisfied and we find that the Minister has misled us, we may return to the matter at a later stage. I am bound to say that I am not satisfied that there is the control that the right hon. Gentleman says exists. In his explanation to me, he did not point out in either clause where the safeguard is supposed to lie.

Mr. Dalyell: Why should the hon. Gentleman be surprised that this probing amendment should reveal these difficulties? Has not it been the story throughout the 36 days that we have considered devolution for Scotland and Wales? Whenever we have had the time to go into any detail, difficulties have arisen. Much more has been revealed when we have opened the manhole than any of us expected.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has much more experience in these matters than I have. That is because he played a notable part in the proceedings on the Scotland Bill, from which duty I was substantially spared. I am sure that he is right. It is true that at every stage we have come up against matters that do not bear thorough examination. The Minister has offered an explanation on an extremely complicated set of clauses. We shall have to read in Hansard what he says and consider his remarks carefully. I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage.

Sir David Renton: Before my hon. Friend seeks to withdraw the amendment, which I presume he intends to do, I should like to ask the Minister of State if he will be so good—we realise that he has done his best—as to consider between now and Report having some amendments drafted, and in due course moving them, to enable effect to be given to the explanation that he has attempted to give to the Committee today. I do not say that such amendments should go into great detail.
However, we are dealing with public money. We are the people who will have to account to our constituents, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, for whatever money is voted for the Welsh Assembly. Therefore, I suggest that there should be a plainer statement in the statute. Normally I am against too much detail in statutes, and I am on record as saying so, but when we have public money to be voted I believe that the principle on which it is voted should be stated without going into much detail.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I take up the point that I made when speaking on the amendment. I shall try to be brief in developing it. Identifiable public expenditure per head by programme and country according to the 1976–77 provision is better in Wales than in England in terms of agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry. The same applies to industry, employment, Government lending to nationalised industries, road and transport, education, libraries, science, art, health, personal social services, social security and other public services.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), speaking for Plaid Cymru, said from a sedentary position that the needs for such services may be greater in Wales, as they are in Scotland, than in parts of England, and that is why the present situation is as it is.
We are talking about the financial provisions of the Bill, and I hope, Sir Myer, that you will allow some latitude on this clause as it is likely that some of the other clauses dealing with financial provision will not be reached because of the implementation of the guillotine.

The First Deputy Chairman: Generally speaking, the Chair cannot allow clauses that are not before the Committee to be discussed because of the existence of the guillotine.

Mr. Evans: I merely point out, Sir Myer, that the clause deals with financial


provision and that the Committee's attention is being directed to the purpose for which the funds are to be used.
It is true that expenditure on housing, law and order and common services is higher in England than it is in Wales. However, there is a whole range of services on which expenditure in Wales is greater than in England. There are other environmental services on which expenditures per head of population are equal as between Wales and England. However, whereas in England the total identifiable public expenditure per head by programme and country for 1976–77, which is provisional, is £754, in Wales, under the existing financial arrangements, it is £875. There is a difference of £121 per head of the population between Wales and England.
There is a good case for Wales obtaining a larger share of public expenditure. That is because of need. For example, there will be more pensions to be paid out in an ageing population. In Wales there is a need for higher expenditure than in England for a variety of reasons. The geography of an area has to be considered. Scotland gets more than Wales, and Scotland is entitled to receive more than Wales and England because of its geography.

Mr. Dalyell: Let us suppose that in a previous incarnation my hon. Friend was the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Yardley, and Birmingham had unemployment and inner city problems. Given that the Scots and the Welsh had Assemblies of their own, for how long would my hon. Friend settle, as the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Yardley, for anything other than neither more nor less strict per capita expenditure, not based on need? Once we start introducing the question of national identity, there will be others looking hawk-like at expenditure that goes above per capita expenditure.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend leads me to the point that I was about to make. Everyone accepts under present arrangements that it is on the basis of need that we should make a financial allocation, but what will happen with the Welsh Consolidated Fund when the Assembly is created, or with the Scottish Consolidated Fund when the Scottish Assembly

is created? We are bound to anticipate a situation in which Members of the House of Commons who come from England will ask "How is it that the amount being given to the Welsh Consolidated Fund is so much when Merseyside, the North-West, the North-East and other parts of England have been affected in the same way by the Industrial Revolution?"

Mr. Kinnock: An interesting sidelight is thrown on the case that my hon. Friend is now advancing by quoting Councillor Aneurin Richards, the leader of the Plaid Cymru group of my local borough council, who told the council a fortnight ago when it was considering devolution that we have to have devolution in Wales because if we do not do what the Scots do we in Wales will be paying for the Scots. That is an interesting sidelight on the fraternity of the nationalists.

Mr. Evans: We all know what the Scottish nationalists think about the oil in Scotland. Unlike most Scottish people, the Scottish nationalists have an attitude that amounts to greed. However, the Shetlands put a spanner in the works. The Shetlanders say that the oil is theirs and that it should be shared among the people of Britain as a whole.
There is the danger of a selfish approach to the situation. As an island, we have tended to look at the financial needs of areas irrespective of whether they are Welsh, Scottish, English or Northern Irish. Those needs have been met by the House of Commons on criteria which know no boundaries. That is the important part.
If we create an Assembly to function in a geographical area, we shall inevitably get to a situation where in future the allocation will be on a per capita basis. It will be difficult to create a financial formula which gives Scotland more than Wales and England and which gives Wales more than England. We must address ourselves to that matter. That is the question that the people of Wales will be looking at when they vote in the referendum. The danger is that, when talking about creating an Assembly for Wales, we may give the impression that we are giving the people of Wales something without their having to pay for it in some other way.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting to the people of Wales that the Labour Government will not grant moneys to the Welsh Assembly to look after the interests of the Welsh people on the same basis as at present.

Mr. Evans: I was making no such suggestion. At the moment, public expenditure throughout these islands is met on certain criteria which are laid down by the House of Commons. In future, if we change the method of allocating finance to Wales and to Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, there will be closer examination by hon. Members here of the allocations to those Assemblies.

Mr. Geraint Ho wells: Why?

Mr. Evans: Because they will be performing their functions as Members of the House of Commons. We shall then find that, instead of the allocations being based on need as now, they will be based on a per capita formula. I may not carry the hon. Gentleman with me, despite the Lib-Lab pact, but I say that it is good Socialism. It should be according to the needs of the people, not according to any geographical criteria.
Once we create Assemblies with powers to deal with financial arrangements, I believe that there will be a close examination here. It may be that in the Assembly the hon. Member for Merioneth will make the point that Wales is not spending as much as England on housing. The hon. Gentleman nods his head. The Members in England will then give a whole catalogue of services on which expenditure in Wales exceeds that in England. That is how the argument will be put.

Mr. W. Benyon: Surely it is more than that. Will any Welsh Assemblyman worth his salt press for an increase, not a decrease, in the various amounts?

Mr. Evans: I shall be coming to that point later.
The capital expenditure is explained in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. The capital expenditure to be incurred to establish the Welsh Assembly
is estimated to comprise (at November 1977 prices):


(i) about £3 million on the adaptation and equipment of the Exchange in Cardiff for use of the Assembly;
(ii) about £1 million on the provision and equipment of office accommodation arising from the creation of the Assembly and the consequent reorganisation of the Welsh Office.

Additional annual running costs, from the takeover of responsibilities, are broadly assessed as follows (at November 1977 prices):
(iii) about £3 million in respect of salaries and related costs of members of the Welsh Assembly and in respect of services for the Assembly;
(iv) about £9½ million in respect of additional civil servants in Wales, including staff of the Welsh Comptroller and Audtitor General and related costs, including accommodation costs.
Are those running costs to come from the Consolidated Fund, or are they to be in addition to the funds allocated to the Consolidated Fund?
If in future the amount allocated to Wales is to be on a different formula, the cost of running the Assembly will be deducted from that amount. That will be to the detriment of public expenditure in Wales. Are these additional costs to be added to the existing public expenditure allowed to Wales or are they to be deducted from it? That important question needs to be posed in determining the function of these funds.
I fear that, as the years go by and we determine the allocations for England, Wales and Scotland, the basis will be not on need but on £X per head of the population. There is a tendency when talking of the Welsh Assembly to give the impression that Wales is getting something extra. I believe that we shall get something in place of the existing structure which financially could be detrimental. We do not know. We cannot say with certainty what the effect will be but it could be detrimental.
What will happen if expenditure exceeds the block grant to the Welsh Consolidated Fund? What will happen if the Welsh Assembly, having spent money on certain services, exceeded the allocated amount? We know that it will be given certain powers to raise loans. We know that for the time being it will be allowed to run an overdraft. But where will that lead us? How long would it be before the Assembly sought additional taxation powers? The hon. Member for Merioneth nods his head.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: indicated dissent.

Mr. Evans: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was agreeing. I suggest that he had better watch that matter. If, in addition to existing taxes, Wales—and Scotland for that matter—is to have additional taxes, I believe that that would have to be examined very carefully. I do not think that we shall attract industry to Wales if the Assembly is to have powers of taxation in addition to those on the other side of the boundary.
I believe that the question of tax-raising powers has been examined by those who drafted both the Scotland and the Wales Bills. There are serious problems. Indeed, we cannot deal with them because there is no Ways and Means resolution before the Committee. Additional taxation powers would require a Ways and Means resolution. That point must be borne in mind in both Wales and Scotland. If the Assembly is not to be tied absolutely to the allocation of funds made by the House of Commons, there will be an attempt to try to bring forward amending legislation in future to provide additional revenue-raising powers. As has been said, a district council or a county council has the power to raise money through rates. The Welsh Assembly will be a purely spending authority. It will be allocated funds by the House of Commons, but it will have no power to raise its own funds.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Assembly will control the rate support grant? It will therefore be able to hold back support from local authorities, force them to raise their rates and thereby add to the total of resources available to the local authorities and to the Assembly.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member would agree with me that the future is a little uncertain. If the Assembly is established and carries on for many years, we do not know what the future of local government will be.
It has been said that the district and county councils will go and that new local government units will be created. This is something for the future. The county councils committee is worried that the financial provisions in the Bill will effect the present rate support grant. After the Assembly is established, the Welsh

Assembly will be able to have some say in determining what funds are to be allocated to local authorities.
When the House of Commons has to go to the people to raise taxation, it is answerable for raising that money. However, if we create a body which is not answerable for raising taxes it will be only a spending authority. That arrangement will sow the seeds of conflict.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that Members of an elected Assembly will be responsible men. Of course they will. But, if a minority says that not enough is being spent by the Assembly on education, housing, roads and other services, does anyone believe that the Liberals will say that the Assembly is spending too much? Of course not. The situation will affect all the Members of the Assembly.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State knows more than anyone that the books have to be balanced and that thought has to be given to where the money is to come from.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend appears to be saying that democratic bodies should not have the power to control their own spending but that some other body should have that power.

Mr. Evans: No. My right hon. Friend is missing the point. The Bill creates a body which is not responsible for raising money. The allocation of money will be made by the House of Commons. The only power that the Assembly will have is for spending that money. The Assembly will have to come to the House and ask for increases. All the Members of the Welsh Assembly will want to spend more money, as we want more money to be spent on Wales. That is natural. We have argued well the case for more money to be spent on Wales. Public expenditure per head in Wales is now greater than it is in England. But the Bill creates a situation in which the Assembly will not have the duty to raise revenue but will have power to spend money. The separation of the spending and the raising of money will create difficulties.
The local government problem is different. Local authorities are given a specific grant. If they want to spend more, they have to raise their rates. The restraint on local authorities is that they must go back to the local people and tell


them that they must pay more rates, and the demand is then diminished. That will not happen in the Assembly.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend accept that this lack of responsibility for the Assembly will lead to an inherently unstable situation which is bound to lead to demands for the Assembly to have its own taxation policies, and that it proves the case that the Assembly as envisaged can only be a staging post?

Mr. Evans: We have had these proposals from the Government Front Bench, and it is felt that they will unify the people of these islands. But I am convinced that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) said, this is only a move on the way to other things. This will not be permanent but will be temporary. The demand will be created for the Assembly to have financial powers, and we shall then move towards separatism. The purpose of the Bill is to reject that.
The financial provisions in the Bill will create a source of conflict if the people of Wales decide by referendum to have an Assembly.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: From what the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) has said, it is clear that these financial clauses bring us to some of the central issues of the whole debate. There are to be funds and in the explanation of their nature much of the Government's intentions will be revealed.
The clause does something important, but it tells us very little about the process of doing it. The clause is qualified or elaborated in various ways in subsequent clauses, but they, too, leave many of the questions unanswered. We have come to one of the great unsolved mysteries of the Bill. We shall have to refer in passing to later clauses because they help to explain the nature of what is happening in this clause.
We all agree that the financial provisions are central to any structure of government, yet there seems to be a deliberate attempt by the Government to hide their intentions in obscurity. Paragraph 77 of the White Paper on finance tells us that these intentions cannot be defined in statute. Paragraph 78 says that Ministers intend to propose an approach, on

the lines set out in paragraph 76, to the devolved Administrations as soon as they are elected. But the key paragraph, paragraph 76, sets out what is described as no more than "a promising approach". It would be to relate the total of devolved public expenditure in Scotland and Wales to comparable expenditure elsewhere in the country on the basis of relative need and to express it as a percentage of comparable expenditure in the country as a whole.
Surely, even in these extraordinary times, it must be considered a little unusual for us to be asked to pass legislation which makes no attempt to define the Government's intentions in statutory form but leaves us with writing what amounts to a blank cheque based on no more than "a promising approach" and the hope that negotiations with a future Assembly might be successful.
The House, in considering the orders that no doubt will be laid in due course under the provisions of Clauses 46 and 47, and the Assembly, in preparing its approach to the negotiations when they take place, are surely entitled to have a concept of what Parliament intended when it prepared the legislation.
Our Amendment No. 253, which has not been called, and later Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 attempt to spell out the "promising approach" described by the Government in paragraph 76. They would provide a minimum safeguard for the Assembly and, more importantly, for the people of Wales that, whatever formula is reached in the negotiations—which, we are told in the White Paper, but not in the Bill, are to take place every four years—each year Wales will get as much as England on a per capita basis and that, in addition, proper regard will be paid to the needs of the Assembly. As we shall see, and as the hon. Member for Aberdare has said, per capita equality on its own would not be enough.
So modest are our Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 that if we had had the opportunity of pressing them to a vote I think that the Government would have been bound to accept them. However, we now have to discuss the skeleton of the Government's proposals. I hope that the Minister of State will spell out with greater clarity than has been done so far


exactly what the Government have in mind.
So important are the financial provisions that it is no exaggeration to say that the success or failure of any scheme for devolution must depend on the soundness of their design. They are the linchpin of the structure. If they are faulty, the consequences must be the friction, bad government and bitterness to which the hon. Member for Aberdare referred.
Unfortunately, as the Kilbrandon Commission told us frankly in paragraph 565,
Such schemes are difficult to devise.
If they provide a substantial measure of financial autonomy for the subordinate Government, they will invite
a much greater degree of political controversy between regions, and between regions and the centre, than now exists.
It goes on to say:
Some regional pressures are brought to bear on questions of finance under the present system, but everything is negotiated and decided within the ambit of one central government. Financial autonomy in the regions would make the debate public, and the attitudes of the negotiating parties would inevitably harden. Such a development could introduce a spirit of contention and divisiveness into British politics which would weaken the unity of the country. On the other hand people may feel that more open controversy is needed in the interests of democracy and to ensure that financial justice is being done to all regions There is some force in both these points of view.
We are therefore warned that if the Government get this difficult business wrong we are likely to produce the increase in conflict that those of us who value unity fear and in which those who look to the break-up of the United Kingdom positively revel. As Mr. John Osmond triumphantly proclaims in his book,
The block grant negotiations conceived in the Labour Government's devolution policy would become a major arena for conflict between Wales and Westminster.
Wales, for reasons that I shall elaborate later and which have been explained to us, obtains a good deal more than its per capita share because of its special needs. At the moment, this process happens without much argument and without arousing jealousy from the English regions, some of which finance the process and others of which face comparable problems.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred a short time ago to some of the problems of the inner city regions. That is because part of the process at present happens automatically through, for example, payments of social security or disability benefit and some of it happens because of the pressures and influence of the Secretary of State, but the debate then goes on within the Government and if a row occurs it does so within the confines of the Cabinet or Cabinet committees. In any case, the argument is conducted piecemeal, programme by programme. It deals with education, housing, roads and so on separately. In that form, the extra sums involved do not appear very large. However, the block grant will be negotiated as a lump sum. It will be a large sum—probably, by now, about £1,000 million. It will be subject to debate in the House and to a good deal of public argument in the Assembly and in the English regions. As the Kilbrandon Commission said in paragraph 595 of its report,
technical difficulties would inevitably arise in attempting to formalise what is now informal; and political difficulties could be expected to arise from revealing year by year what is now not merely undisclosed but largely unrecorded.
It is a delusion to imagine that the Government could have avoided these difficulties if, instead of a block grant system—that is, the expenditure-based system—they had gone for a revenue system in which the Assembly raised most of its own taxes. The arguments against such a system seem considerable. Kilbrandon felt that for most people equity was more important than regional independence, and, therefore, opted for the expenditure basis.
8.15 p.m.
In the White Paper on finance, paragraph 12 points out that, because Wales needs to spend so much more than it can raise in taxes, there will have to be a topping-up process by the central Government, and there would still have to be an assessment of needs even if we approached the matter in that way. Since people want to enjoy broadly comparable standards, some kind of block grant system is almost inevitable. Northern Ireland in practice, faced by the realities of the situation, moved away from the revenue-based system that it had been given at the outset.
The complications and the potential for conflict arise not from the fact that the Government have selected from among the possible options the one least likely to succeed but because these complications and conflicts are unavoidable in a set-up in which there are two Governments in a single States, one of which is responsible for providing the money and the other for spending it. That was the point that was rightly and forcefully made by the hon. Member for Aberdare. It is the nature of the devolution scheme rather than of the financial solution which is at the hub of the problem.
There will be two Governments, yet in "Our Changing Democracy" Ministers tell us that
Further study has confirmed that this is inescapable. Economic unity requires a system which considers the expenditure needs of the whole United Kingdom, including the claims of regions with special problems. This requires a decision each year on public expenditure for all parts of the United Kingdom by the Government, answerable to Parliament.
So we have one Government deciding on public expenditure in the United Kingdom as a whole and another with a completely different interest—that of maximising the expenditure in its own particular area, and maximising it for perfectly respectable and legitimate reasons.
There is no point at which conflict is more inevitable than at this point in the Bill. There is no point at which it is more fundamental in its consequences. Even the Government admit in their White Paper that the task involves
judgments of grave complexity and political sensitivity.
It is clear that the problems inherent in a block grant system are very formidable. Kilbrandon summed them up very well. I quote:
At one extreme there is the detailed measurement of needs in individual services, together with specific payments to match those needs; at the other extreme there is the general measurement of needs by an arbitrary formula, and the satisfaction of those needs by a block grant. The first approach allows for maximum equity. The second gives most independence. The more refined the process of measurement becomes, the closer will be the investigation of expenditure plans. The danger with a block grant formula, on the other hand, is that it will break down in practice because its measurement of needs is too rough. The poorer regions particularly would fear this danger.

The Kilbrandon Commissioners were led on to propose a solution of labyrinthine complexity involving an independent Exchequer Board which would adjudicate on the different allocations between the various parts of the United Kingdom. That scheme has been turned down by the Government on the grounds that these things cannot be done on a scientific basis and that the matter of deciding on the allocation of funds is essentially political. Yet the process to take the place of the Exchequer Board system remains obscure.
We are told in paragraph 71 of the White Paper that it would be rather nice to have some information on which to make these political judgments. It continues
Studies are now being undertaken within Government Departments with the aim of collecting objective information on needs and standards of public services in all four countries of the United Kingdom. The Government hope this information will help them and the devolved administrations to make informed judgments on levels of expenditure and to explain them publicly.
They may hope so, and we hope so too, but we would like to know how these studies are getting on. I put these specific questions to the Minister: what progress has been made, and what are the results?
Then the Government propose establishing an independent advisory body to collect information and advise on its implications. What form is the body to take? What is to be its size? How many civil servants will it employ? What will be its costs? Are the costs and the numbers involved included in the total figures given in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill? We must have answers on these points.
It really is not good enough to come to the House of Commons and ask approval for a scheme that in 1975–76 would have involved expenditure on devolved services in Wales of about £1,200 million, on the Government's own estimate, of which three-quarters will be paid for by block grant on a basis of pure speculation and the declaration in "Our Changing Democracy "that
it will be the outcome of a close and thorough process of discussion each year with the Assembly.
That sounds to me rather as if the Government have not got a clue about


how the whole thing will work out but are simply waiting hopefully for something to turn up or for someone else to clear up the mess that they are creating.
There is another sentence in "Our Changing Democracy" that is pregnant with implications of a disturbing kind. It comes at the tail end of appendix C, which describes the whole process to us. It says:
Note: Arrangements will be made during the financial year for Supplementary Estimates procedures to vote any appropriate additional finance to the devolved services.
Most hon. Members know a good deal about Supplementary Estimates procedures in this place, and we can understand very well what is likely to happen. But what exactly is the implication? Is it that, for all the advice of the independent advisory board, and despite the close and thorough process of discussion, the assessment of needs is likely to prove inaccurate and the Assembly will come back for more, or is the implication wider and a good deal more sinister than that? What happens if the Assembly ignores the stern supervising eye of the Treasury and exceeds its budget?
After the previous debate, I became quite alarmed at the stern eye of the Minister of State, Treasury, and we have respect for the way in which the Treasury seeks to control these measures. But what happens if the Assembly simply ignores Treasury Ministers' advice? What happens if it launches capital programmes that create their own momentum of revenue expenditure, as capital programmes are rather inclined to do?

Mr. Dalyell: If either the hon. Gentleman or myself were an Assemblyman, would we not succumb to the temptation to have precisely such a confrontation for our own political advantage, in order to cover up our own shortcomings? It is hardly a question of "if there is a confrontation". It is a fact that people will find it in their interests normally to manufacture precisely such a conflict.

Mr. Edwards: Of course they will. Every time a complaint is made about a hospital, a school, a road or whatever, of course the Assembly will turn round and say "It is not our fault, of course. It is those fools up at Westminster who will

not give us the money." Of course, it is in its interests to say just that.
But what happens if this excessive expenditure occurs? Surely the Assembly will come back to the Government and demand funds to keep essential services going. Unlike the local authorities, it will not face the unpleasant discipline of raising the money by additional rates, because it has no power to do so.
No doubt we shall be told that the Government can simply refuse additional funds. But, if that involves the closing of hospitals and schools or the sacking of staff, I wonder whether it will happen in practice. To take up the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian, let me say that, if it does, we can imagine the bitterness as the Assembly blames the disaster on the inadequate funding by central Government. The scope for conflict is obviously immense.
I said a moment ago that the Assembly will not be able to boost its funds by increasing rates. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) pointed out in an intervention, there is, in fact, the possibility that it will be able to do just that by the back door. A very large proportion of the block grant to Wales will consist of funds available to local government by way of rate support grant. As we shall discover during our debate on a later amendment, if we get to it, the local authorities in Wales will be excluded from the process of direct negotiation with the central Government over the rate support grant. But what happens once the overall size of the rate support grant has been decided? There is absolutely no obligation on the Assembly to pass all of it on to local government.
That is made absolutely plain in paragraph 228 of "Our Changing Democracy", which says:
The Assembly will decide both how much of the block grant should be distributed to local government and how to allocate it among individual authorities. In calculating the block grant the Government will in general assume that Welsh local authorities will receive, in relation to their expenditure needs and their taxable resources, provision comparable with that for local authorities in England; whether they in fact levy more or less local tax, and are assigned more or less subsidy from the block grant, will be a matter to be settled in Wales.
In other words, the Assembly has a hidden power to tax via the local authorities. At present, the RSG in Wales stands


at about £500 million a year. Theoretically the Assembly could reduce that, keeping a sum for itself and forcing the local authorities to raise the extra money from the rates. In that way, the Assembly would be able to raise revenue without incurring any of the odium for doing so.
So we are to have a system which is complex, difficult and obscure, which is likely to produce raging conflict and which can be manipulated to the great disadvantage of the local authorities. It is introduced by a Bill that leaves the arrangements entirely undefined and provides no safeguards or guarantees of any kind. It is a system which has to provide for a part of the country where the needs are exceptional and the resources inadequate.
I think that I am entitled to suggest two things: first, that such a system is not likely to be of any advantage to Wales—a point already made by the hon. Member for Aberdare—and, secondly, that, if we are to have it, we should write some basic principles into the Bill with a view to safeguarding the interests of the Welsh people.
We are told in "Our Changing Democracy" in paragraph 224, that
The Government's decision on the total amount for all the devolved services will not be a matter of simply imposing an arbitrary figure; it will be the outcome of a close and thorough process of discussion.
I say that it will be the outcome of a major battle. The Assembly will inevitably blame all the inadequacies of its administration upon shortage of funds.
But it must be said that many of the inadequacies are likely to arise from the fact that social conditions in Wales are worse than they are in the rest of Britain. Low activity rates underlie low per capita gross domestic product. We have high unemployment, more sick and disabled, more people dependent on supplementary benefit, and poor housing, poor roads and poor infrastructure. The reason why we get more than England is accounted for and fully justified by these facts.
But the fad is that we get more funds. In 1976–77—I repeat the figures that have already been given to the Committee—we got £875 per head in Wales of identifiable public expenditure as compared with £754 in England. This is despite the fact

that we produce much less in tax—£390 per head, compared with £516 in England excluding revenue from local authorities and national insurance contributions.
If Wales had to manage on its own natural wealth, as the nationalists would like, we should be in a desperate state. Our contribution in terms of gross domestic product per head is significantly lower than that of either Scotland or England—£1,455 per head as compared with £1,686 in England in 1975–76.

Mr. Dalyell: Every time grant is allocated in future, if there is a Welsh Assembly, will not MPs from the North-East of England, the West Country and East Anglia, where there are low wages, be failing in their duty if they do not question why Wales should get more than its per capita share? Even if the MPs do not have the inclination to do so, their constituency associations will begin to ask questions.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Edwards: We have already dealt with that point and explained how, because these things are now clearly identified in the public eye, they will be the subject of argument and debate. English Members will undoubtedly act in this way, and Welsh Members may be in difficulties because they will have to try to get adequate resources for Wales, although they may wholly disagree with the Assembly's policies.
There is no reason to blame the present system for our condition in Wales, because that system is taking account of Welsh needs. It is not obvious that the confrontation method proposed in the Bill—for that is what it is—will produce a better result. Our fate depends, in the Government's words, on "understanding on both sides". But it is much more difficult to get that understanding in an annual stand-up debate than it is in the discussions which go on within a single Government.
The fact that the grant allocation will take place on a four-year basis—or so we are told in the White Paper, although this is not mentioned in the Bill—will not apparently eliminate the need for annual Votes, and, therefore, presumably annual rows, even if we do not have annual Supplementary Estimates as well.
It is terrifying that the Government should be putting so much at risk, that


there should be so much uncertainty on matters so central to the welfare of the people and that we should be asked to pass a Bill which creates a vacuum rather than giving rights or imposing obligations. In asking us to pass this clause, the Government are taking an enormous gamble with the welfare of the people. For that reason and many others, I believe that I am genuinely justified in asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I became more and more depressed as I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). What they were saying can be summed up in one sentence, and my hon. Friend almost said that he would be appealing to the Welsh people in the referendum campaign on this basis: "Do not establish a Welsh Assembly or you will undermine our ability to get more charity from the British Government."

Mr. Ioan Evans: It is not charity.

Mr. Ellis: That was my hon. Friend's message—charity.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I did not use the word "charity". That is an offensive word, and I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw it. I argued that the matter should be based on need. That is fully justified. My hon. Friend should use his own words in his own arguments and not put words into my mouth.

Mr. Ellis: Put baldly, the word "charity" might appear offensive, but when I have explained it I think that my hon. Friend will see that it is appropriate. The case of both he and the hon. Member for Pembroke can be summed up in the word "need".

Mr. Ioan Evans: It is a Socialist argument.

Mr. Ellis: I do not question the need to deal with the matter in this way. But what exactly are the real needs? To my hon. Friend—this is where the word "charity" came into my mind—the need of the Welsh people is for more money per head to be spent in Wales than in England on health, social services, education and so on. To me, those are not the fundamental needs but consequences

of the fundamental needs. Expenditure on those matters is to me so much cosmetic to hide the fundamental needs.
Perhaps I can explain what I mean by the real needs. I should like to give one example, speaking from memory. I will endeavour to give my hon. Friend the correct reference later. I refer to a Government response to a report by a Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The report dealt with the effectiveness of regional policy over a decade. I may be slightly wrong in my figures but they are correct within 5 per cent. The report made the point that, in the decade ending 1974, had the proportion of employment in Scotland, the North of England and Wales remained in 1974 what it had been in 1964—that is, 45 per cent, of the total employment of the United Kingdom—there would have been about 360,000 more jobs in those regions than there were. Almost all those jobs had been transferred from those three regions to the South-East and the West Midlands.
That is an example of the real needs, as a consequence of which all the other cosmetic needs have to be met, to provide some kind of palliative to deal with critical situations. That is the nub of the question.
It is a fundamentally misconceived and misguided policy to suggest to the Welsh people that, if we set up an Assembly, it will undermine our ability to go to the Government in Westminster for more money for the social services and so on in Wales. That is the last thing that I would dream of saying to the Welsh people.

Mr. Ioan Evans: We all know that it is part of the history of these islands that the Industrial Revolution came to Wales and Scotland and also affected Yorkshire and Lancashire. We also know that because of the expansion of industrial development in the South-East the needs in certain geographical areas are greater than in certain other areas. My hon. Friend need not dwell only in Wales in this respect, because there are very great problems on Merseyside. Birkenhead has an unemployment figure of 20 per cent. Unemployment is higher in some parts of England than it is in Wales.
I hope that when we determine how much should be spent on education, housing, welfare and so on, the criterion adopted by this House will be that the expenditure should be based on actual needs. My hon. Friend is suggesting that if we solve the problem of unemployment we can solve some of the other problems. Of course, but the problem of unemployment needs to be solved in these islands generally rather than on a geographical basis.

Mr. Ellis: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has just said, but he is making great play with the extra expenditure, as if it were an enormous argument against the establishment of a Welsh Assembly. I question that argument—

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ellis: My hon. Friend will not allow me to develop my argument.

Mr. Ioan Evans: If my hon. Friend does not get this point right, he will not understand the argument. The point that we are making is a very simple one and it has been made on both sides of the Committee. As the moment the argument is based on needs.

Mr. Ellis: I am coming to that.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Fair enough, but my hon. Friend should not try to argue from a point which has not been made.

Mr. Ellis: If my hon. Friend will do me the courtesy of listening to me while I develop my argument, he can by all means intervene later, if he wishes to do so.
Education is a need which is usually met through the machinery of local government. Together with some of my friends in Wales, I am becoming seriously concerned about educational attainments in Wales. Certain information has been produced quite recently in this connection. We are particularly concerned about certain areas of Wales from which for a long time the cream—the more intellectual type of child—has been drained. In certain areas of Wales people are becoming seriously concerned that there is now an inherent and fundamental intellectual shortfall in the average attainments of children as compared with

the average over the whole of the United Kingdom. This has come about over a long time and the educational need is so crucial and so profound that it could not be met merely by the normal forms of education.
It is in this sense that I am pointing out that these are the first and fundamental needs. Having said that, I do not advocate what the nationalists advocate. I think they are profoundly wrong to suggest that Wales on its own would be better. It would not be better. I believe that Britain on its own would not be better, let alone Wales on its own. Britain is clearly dependent on a lot of other countries. I am not saying that Wales ought to go it alone.
I would not get up in a Parliament or in an Assembly and argue that if we had an established Assembly we should have greater and greater conflict with similar bodies such as Assemblies in Scotland, embyronic regions perhaps and the Parliament in London. If I said that, I would be saying in effect that politicians are not sufficiently responsible people to appreciate the true requirements, in the most fundamental sense, of various parts of the United Kingdom.
The problem goes even deeper. One of the most fundamental difficulties facing the British Government is economic steering. Within that overall economic steering there is a disproportion between the regions: while we need to reflate in one region we may need to deflate in another region at the same time. It is in that fundamental sense that the establishment of the Assembly should be considered.
I implore my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare to cease arguing that if we set up an Assembly we shall establish some kind of continuous conflict between the rest of the United Kingdom and Wales.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My hon. Friend is not getting the point. At present these islands are treated equally. The point I was making was that if there are needs in different parts of Britain they are met according to the criteria of need. But if we create an Assembly, instead of allocating the funds on the basis of need, as has been the case in the past, we may well have a formula where funds might be allocated per head of population. I know that this is hypothetical. I am not


saying that this will come about. The point I am making is that it might come about.
I am saying that there might be a desire to have a formula on the basis of per head of population. But that creates the possibility of conflict. It is not a question of the people not wanting it. But if we create new financial or political institutions, certain things follow. What I am criticising are the possible consequences.
My hon. Friend should not suggest that the people of Wales can get something without their realising that it will cost something. If it is the will of the people of Wales to have it, even if it means less being spent on education and health, for example, then so be it—

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. One hon. Member ought to make a speech at a time. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) may catch my eye later.

Mr. Ellis: I have not misunderstood my hon. Friend at all. The first part of what he said can be summed up in what the hon. Member for Pembroke said. My hon. Friend said that the present system takes account of Welsh needs. That is precisely the point that I am challenging. In fact, the present system does not take account of Welsh needs. It all boils down to the definition of "needs". The regional employment premium has been scrapped. The industrial development certificate system has been emasculated. The reason for this is that there is 6 per cent. unemployment in the West Midlands. But there is 13 per cent, unemployment in my constituency, and there is probably 13 or 14 per cent, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
8.45 p.m.
Because the position in the West Midlands is now so serious, we cannot tolerate this business of handing out all the goodies to the regions. I challenge the statement that the present system is taking account of Welsh needs, because it manifestly is not. It boils down to a definition of the word "needs".
Finally, in his rather long intervention, my hon. Friend talked about conflict. I do not see that. I should have liked to see regional Assemblies set up in England.

I would have welcomed those before Assemblies in Scotland and Wales because it would have kept out of the argument the emotive issues that are clouding the scene and are really red herrings. If the North-West of England is to meet its needs, it must develop a political clout vis-à-vis the Government. That is the fundamental issue. To cloud the discussion with all this talk about social security payments per head is misleading, particularly to the people who will in due course have to vote in the referendum.

Sir Raymond Gower: I wish that I could agree entirely with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) because plainly he speaks with feeling and elan. However, he stretches his argument very far. His argument that there has been a weakening recently in the IDC system and that this is primarily due to the increase in unemployment in parts of the Midlands is taking things a bit far. Does he really suppose that if there was an Assembly in Wales this would in some way improve the position, even if there was unemployment in the Midlands or the South-East of England? Does he really believe that this would, in itself, enable Wales to have a larger share of the global resources of the United Kingdom? That argument is hard to sustain.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I shall not pursue this now because it would be out of order, but perhaps at some other date we shall have the opportunity to put forward that very case. There are very good examples of regions with political clout making regional policy work.

Sir R. Gower: What the hon. Member is saying is that the mere existence of an Assembly will enable Wales to have a better deal vis-à-vis the rest of the United Kingdom. I would not go along with that. Nor would I go all the way with the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). I cannot see that either argument is as clear as the hon. Members would have us believe.
We are discussing the setting up of two agencies prescribed in Clause 42—the Welsh Consolidated Fund and the Welsh Loans Fund. These are the two parts of the establishment and management of Welsh funds. These are the financial provisions for the Welsh Assembly. Basically one cannot argue with the feeling


that we are establishing solely a spending agency—a spending agency of Government.
Perhaps the Assembly will have wide-ranging debates on all sorts of subjects, but I regard it as a serious defect in the Bill that it will have none of the discipline imposed by the unpopularity which practically all Parliaments have to face when collecting money. The imposition of taxes in any form is a salutary exercise, because it is not popular.

Mr. Hooson: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the Assembly having a tax-raising function so that it may raise its own revenues?

Sir R. Gower: Certainly that would be preferable to the present formula. This is only one part of the normal business of any Assembly of this nature.

Mr. Hooson: Is that the view of the Conservative Party?

Sir R. Gower: No; I am saying that that would be preferable to the formula in the Bill. I do not necessarily put forward that view as something I would desire at this stage, but I repeat that it is vastly preferable to the system in the Bill. The sole raison d'etre of the membership of the Assembly will be to find ways to dispose of the money in the most effective way.

Mr. Dalyell: Will it not be the raison d'etre of Welsh and Scottish Members of Parliament, if these Assemblies are set up, to screw more money out of the English Treasury?

Sir R. Gower: That also is true. The Assembly will have a certain amount of money per annum, but will have no responsibility for collecting it. Its sole reason for existence, to use the English term, will be to spend this money.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I am interested in this point. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he finds it so offensive to have a Welsh Assembly spending money but not being responsible for raising it when he and his party have consistently, over a long time, flooded Wales with nominated bodies which have spent money and have never been asked to raise one farthing of it?

Sir R. Gower: Those are agencies of Government. The proposals we are now discussing relate to a form of government, an embryo Parliament—an entirely different matter.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman is not answering the point.

Sir R. Gower: I am. I am saying that the two matters are not comparable. The powers may extend, for example, to the tourist agency, but that agency has a limited remit. In this Bill we are talking about an embryo Parliament. That is the context in which I criticise this set-up. It is desirable in all public authorities that there should be the salutary corrective of the unpopularity that is associated with the collection of money, the collection of rates, and so on. Therefore, I submit that an Assembly which lacks that responsibility will be defective, and will be liable in the longer term to change itself into a complete Parliament. That is why many of us are so anxious about this matter.
The hon. Member for Wrexham made one point with which I entirely agree. Had this been carried out in a federal context, it would have been far less dangerous. The trouble is that the positions are different in Scotland, Wales and England and the situation is divisive, and I deeply regret that.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall speak briefly. Like other hon. Members, I want to get on to other important amendments and other clauses.
I congratulate the Welsh on something that the Scots failed to achieve. At least for the Welsh a member of the Treasury has come to answer questions. Day after day during the Scotland Bill some of us thought that the Treasury Ministers ought to be answering. So the Welsh have succeeded where the Scots have failed.
There was a fascinating moment on which one should comment during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) when he was interrupted by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) from the Liberal Benches. It was a sotto voce interruption but I think it was accurate. When my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare was saying that, of course, the Welsh should expect no more than per capita treatment


and would not receive the favourable treatment that he outlined, the hon. Member for Cardigan from a sedentary position said "Why on earth should not they?" I make no complaint about the hon. Member's absence because he has attended very well. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is present.
The answer to the hon. Member for Cardigan is that a lot of people, not only in England but in Scotland and Wales, think that people can have their cake and eat it. The idea that one can go on for any length of time having one's cake and eating it is the idea of someone living in fairyland.

Mr. Hooson: Surely the answer to that point is that the House of Commons would be as anxious then as it is now to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom. So will the Welsh Members who come here. That is why they want equality of payments and social services grants to each part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: I wonder whether this generous treatment will continue. Once people have had an Assembly, and once the Assembly trumpets views of national identity and the idea of a separate set-up and makes claims the like of which are not made now, it is stretching the generosity of other people to expect them to behave as they do at present.

Mr. Ioan Evans: There is the other point that, whereas at the moment there are certain criteria laid down for the whole of Britain, if we are to have a block grant system, the Assembly will be able to determine that less will be spent on education and more on something else. It is inevitable that with a block grant system there will be great disparities in future in what is spent on roads, education and other services.

Mr. Dalyell: Furthermore, there will be occasion for this kind of dispute every time there is an estimate and every time there is a supplementary estimate. It will be a series of running sores. That is a realistic view of what will happen.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury was not entirely agreed, so let me put this proposition to him. I have been longing to say this face to

face in these debates to a Treasury Minister. Whenever anything goes wrong—any time Assemblymen find that there are houses that are not built which should have been built, whenever roads which should have been repaired are not repaired and whenever hospitals that should have been created are not created—what will happen? They will say "Of course, it is not our fault. It is the responsibility of the English." They will say that they do not have sufficient power from Westminster, and in particular, they will say that it is the fault of parsimonious English Treasury Ministers. Good Welshman as he is, the Minister will, in the popular view, be put in that position.
9.0 p.m.
I do not speak for Wales. It would be impertinent of me to do so. Certainly in Scotland he will be put in the position of a parsimonious English Treasury Minister—the man they love to hate. For his sake, I hope that before any Assemblies are formed he is promoted out of the Treasury to some Department of his own. In that way he will be spared the constant pillorying that will take place. This is an inevitable result of human nature.
I want to ask some factual questions, so perhaps my hon. Friend will get his pen out. What is this Executive Committee of the Assembly? I have been here during all of these debates, and I may be thick and obtuse, but I still have not discovered who these folk are who make up the Executive Committee of the Assembly. This raises the question of the nature of the Assembly. After all those days on the Scotland Bill, we still did not know, at the fag-end of the debate, whether the Government thought that Assemblymen should be full-time or part-time.

The Second Deputy Chairman: No doubt the hon. Gentleman knows where this subject is in the Bill. It does not appear to be in the clause we are dealing with at the moment.

Mr. Dalyell: This is Clause 42(2). It refers to the Executive Committee of the Assembly. I am asking what this committee is. Is it a Welsh Cabinet?

Mr. Kinnock: Or a Welsh dresser?

Mr. Dalyell: Is there to be a Welsh Chancellor of a Welsh Exchequer? I


do not know how decisions like this can be made unless there is an Exchequer or a sub-Exchequer or something of that nature. This raises another question—whether the Welsh Chancellor of the Welsh Exchequer will be shadowed by someone responsible, or by the Secretary of State himself.
With all the good will in the world, which perhaps I do not have, there will have to be a parallel set of civil servants in this set-up. I do not say that every civil servant working for the Welsh Assembly has to be shadowed by someone responsible to the Secretary of State, but I ask my right hon. Friend, who is a Treasury Minister, what the arrangements for the Civil Service are to be. If we do not have two sets of civil servants, how will the Secretary of State get his advice?
If the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) was Secretary of State for Wales in a Conservative Government in London, and if there were a Labour Administration in the Coal Exchange, are we saying that the Secretary of State and the Administration in the Coal Exchange should be advised on delicate financial and fiscal matters by the same civil servants? If this is so, serious questions of loyalty are bound to arise. Every senior civil servant would have to make up his mind whether his first loyalty was to the Coal Exchange or to Westminster.
This question as it applies to Scotland was never answered. This is a Morton's fork situation. Either there is a parallel set of civil servants or we put impossible strains on their loyalties. If we have a parallel set of civil servants, what is the extra manpower cost of all these arrangements?
I wish to ask a question to which the Government should have an answer. Given the establishment of a Welsh Consolidated Fund, a Welsh Loans Fund and a Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General, with all the other things in this part of the Bill, what will be the extra manpower costs of this system over and above the present system which is responsible for Wales? I am asking for a fairly simple calculation.
All the talk in Scotland is that the Government have fantastically underestimated the administrative cost of the proposals in the Scotland Bill, and I

suspect that there is the same underestimate in this Bill. If the Government say that they will use existing civil servants for both set-ups, we come back, on Morton's Fork, to the question of loyalties.
Has the Minister of State had any difficulty in comprehending my question?

Mr. Denzil Davies: I have understood it.

Mr. Dalyell: Good. I look forward to receiving an answer.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The debate has been largely devoted to the two funds referred to in Clause 42 which will provide the resources to meet the needs of the Principality. No doubt the Government will say that they intend to allocate moneys to Wales in future according to need and the general availability of resources in the United Kingdom, as they have done in the past. But need is not constant. It varies from time to time, and people's awarness of need changes.
There is not much doubt that our needs in Wales will change. I have seen the awareness of need change a great deal in my lifetime, from the 1930s onwards. Changes in awarness reflected real changes in need. I have childhood memories of the extensive suffering caused by tuberculosis and the untold misery and devastation that it caused to many families in the Gwynedd area. That disease, which killed so many people in the prime of life, has virtually been eradicated, but there are now other health needs.
Health needs in Wales remain great. The number of days lost from work through sickness in Wales is 209 per cent, of the English figure. Each Welsh family practitioner dispenses 31 per cent, more prescriptions per person and sees 27 per cent, more people than does the average English GP.
The Welsh Office consultative document proposed the policies and priorities for the planning and provision of health and personal social services from 1977 to 1980 and noted serious gaps in the provision for the mentally ill, the physically handicapped and the elderly and in personal social services, but the document envisaged a standstill in health care provision. Despite the pressing need for extra resources, the Welsh share of public expenditure on health


was only slightly greater—at 101 per cent.—than the United Kingdom figure in 1975–76. In every area of Government expenditure in 1976–77, the figure per head of the population in Wales was higher than that in England—with certain notable exceptions. As a Welshman I am concerned to ensure that we do at least as well in future as we have done in the past. There have been areas of expenditure where, for various reasons, provision has been inadequate, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) said.
The housing situation is a national scandal, as all of us know who hold surgeries in our constituencies. Nearly 10 per cent, of our housing stock is unfit for human habitation. Another 9 per cent. lacks either one or more of the basic amenities or is badly in need of repair. All in all, about half a million of our people live in inferior housing. However, Government spending on housing in Wales in 1976–77, at a provisional figure of £77 per head, was lower than that in England of £86 per head and far lower than that in Scotland at £113 per head. The number of new homes started last year was lower than in any year since 1959.
Law and order is another area of lower expenditure per head in Wales. It is doubtful whether that should be so bearing in mind that there has been a 520 per cent, increase in violent crime in Wales since 1960, compared with a 390 per cent, increase in England over the same period. It came as a great shock to me and, I think, to the Minister of State, Home Office when I elicited that figure from him at the end of 1977.

Mr. Hooson: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the crime rate is still lower in Wales than in England.

Mr. Roberts: I was astonished at the tremendous increase in crime. That is the point that I am making. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows only too well that he is talking about a different set of figures. I am talking about the increase in violent crime in Wales as opposed to England. The rate may still be lower, but the increase has been greater.
The only other area of lower expenditure in Wales than in England is under the head of common services. That is not

surprising as the services are provided mainly from London. However, the overall picture of Government expenditure in Wales is, I think, a fair one. It is 8½ per cent, higher than the per capita expenditure for the United Kingdom as a whole. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) indicated, set against our gross domestic product per head and tax raised per head, we in Wales are certainly receiving our fair share in the most generous sense of the word. There is no doubt that the general standard of living in Wales has improved since the war and will, we hope, improve still further.
When I last spoke about Government expenditure in Wales on the first day allotted to the Bill, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) intervened to say that there was another possible interpretation of the figures. The hon. Gentleman said that I said
that Wales and Scotland receive more from the public purse. Is not that because Wales has more unemployment, and more poverty, and because the social services there demand more? Are not those facts the consequence of misgovernment, and is not that an argument that there is more misgovernment …?"—[Official Report, 1st March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 521.]
If ever there were a case of putting the cart before the horse, I think that that is it. It is no wonder that the Plaid Cymru horse is a non-starter at General Elections, despite much spurring and flogging. At one moment Plaid Cymru is calling for more money from the Treasury to tackle Welsh problems, and the next moment it is saying that we in Wales would be better on our own. There is a contradiction in its statements which it resolves in Wales by misleading people, but it cannot get away with it here.
9.15 p.m.
Of course, Wales has greater needs than many parts of England. But, much as I should like to lay them all at the feet of this Government, I cannot in all honesty do so. However, I can press the Government to recognise needs, many of which arise from the accident of or peripheral location. I can also seek to ensure that the problems of Wales are in the forefront of the Government's mind when they are allocating resources. To do that successfully we, as Members of Parliament, realise that we must be here in the House of Commons in strength, not fighting over


the bones of a block grant thrown to an Assembly in Cardiff.
Amendment No. 248, which I doubt whether we shall reach, seeks to ensure a basic equality of treatment with England in the event of the Bill going through. I have been talking about how well Wales has done. There is no guarantee for the future that we shall do as well as the rest of the country in terms of expenditure. The amendment implies that we may not do as well as we have done in the past in securing a share of the available resources related to our needs rather than to any other principle of distribution.
I am convinced that we are right to try to establish this fall-back position. I have always been suspicious of the central Government's motive in pushing the Bill and all that it entails and in seeking to foist it upon the people of Wales. Time and again I have said that I believe the underlying motive for this form of devolution to be financial. The block grant system—not wholly recommended by the Royal Commission—is a powerful attraction for the central Government in that it avoids those occasional pressures and calls for more resources here and there.
Let us not forget that the four-year negotiation has been suggested because annual negotiation would be too combative. Therefore, we are to have a four-yearly struggle instead of an annual struggle. It is a formula to provide an easier life for the central Government. It will enable the central Government to turn a deaf ear to pleas by Members of Parliament. When there is special pleading, Ministers—I can hear them now—will say "This is a matter for the Assembly. It has the resources within the block grant." If the matter under discussion is not attended to, it will be the fault of the Assembly, not of Westminster or Whitehall. I think that it will be six of one, half a dozen of the other. There will be conflict on both sides.
Of course, we know that the Assembly will not be silent. It will say that the block grant is not enough, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, and it will build up a deep and abiding resentment in Wales against Westminster and Whitehall—a resentment which may well overflow into extremist political action.
The Government must give some guarantee for the future. If they try to pooh-pooh that as unnecessary and seek to assure us that they intend to deal with Wales as they have done in the past, the people of Wales should know that they are being quietly outflanked and out-manoeuvred in the battle for a proper share of resources appropriate to their needs.
We have come a long way from the Royal Commission's report. In paragraph 655, it said that its
inquiries suggest that those people who welcome the idea of regional independence would nevertheless regard financial equity as ultimately more important.
In paragraph 669 the Commission continued:
in view of the practice which has been built up for the detailed measurement of needs, service by service, it is very doubtful whether an arbitrary formula, resulting in a fixed grant for say five years, would be acceptable or indeed workable. It would be necessary to construct a more flexible system which, whilst retaining the block grant idea, would include a fairly sensitive measurement of marginal need, probably every year.
The Commission then proposed an independent Exchequer Board. That is not what is proposed in the Bill. We do not have any really detailed proposals about how the block grant system will work. We have clauses setting out the funds and so on, but it is by no means clear how the block grant system will work. What we do know, if we may still rely on "Our Changing Democracy: Devolution for Scotland and Wales"—is that
The amount will be a matter of political judgment on the basis of an assessment of relative needs made jointly with the Scottish"—
and presumably Welsh—
administration through close and continuous collaboration.
The Government went on to say:
The task involves judgments of great complexity and political sensitivity.
Those who have talked in this debate about political clout are absolutely right. Nevertheless, objective information on standards and needs would help those concerned with these judgments. We understand that there is to be an advisory board, but we have not been told how that objective information is to be obtained or how the grant is to be calculated. Will the information be gathered


by civil servants in London or Cardiff? Who will sift the information? To whom will it be presented? Will the Assembly have the information and base the block grant application upon it, or will the information be supplied direct to the central Government, who will then tell the Assembly what it is to receive?
Is the negotiation—be it on a four-year basis or whatever happens—to be held in public? Shall we know about it, or will it take place behind closed doors? There is a vagueness about the financial provisions which I find disquieting.

Mr. Dalyell: Does not the hon. Member believe that a four-year basis is wholly unrealistic in the light of post-war experience? Who would say that economic forecasting in this country is of such a kind that we can possibly do this on a four-year basis?

Mr. Roberts: I agree. I understand that the idea of a four-year or quinquennial grant was evolved because it was expected that there would be too much conflict and argument if it were negotiated on an annual basis.
Far from making me feel confident about the future—and I speak as a Welshman—these provisions encourage my doubts and suspicions about the real motivation behind the Bill.

Mr. Kinnock: I shall be brief because the whole question of the block grant and the Consolidated Fund has been rehearsed frequently in previous debates and last year. However, the case is not hurt by repetition. I wish to save the time of the Committee because there are several other clauses that require detailed responses.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to recall that we are talking about a country which, through no fault of its own, will for many years be, as it is now and as it has been for several years—for as long as we have had a compassionate State—in financial deficit with the remainder of the United Kingdom. That single consideration must form a great many of our attitudes to the appropriateness of the kind of financial devolution that the Government are proposing by this clause and subsequent clauses.
Therefore, we require answers about the nature of the Welsh Consolidated Fund and the powers open to elected representatives of the people of Wales to influence the resources made available to the people of Wales, with their great and growing needs, especially in the areas of employment provision, social services, housing, transport improvements and so on. All these questions must be very major concerns and must have specific answers.
The fact is that there is a bald statement in Clause 42:
There shall be a Welsh Consolidated Fund.
It is a bit reminiscent of "Let there be light". But whereas in the latter case we could rely on divine intervention and the poetry of those who described the event of the manufacturer of the world, we cannot rely on that divinity to ensure that the Welsh Consolidated Fund shall be funded, let alone consolidated.
The problem is that in none of the subsequent clauses is there a specific description of where the money will come from for the Consolidated Fund, how it will be calculated, what needs will be taken into account in its calculation, and how the Welsh Assembly can take powers from those who now have responsibility for spending the money, the local and statutory authorities, and exercise that responsibility fairly in terms of all of the interests of the Welsh people or, indeed, efficiently to the general advantage of the Welsh people.
I think that my right hon. Friend can answer the question very simply. Without going into too much Treasury mathematics, which probably hynotise the Treasury as much as they baffle everyone outside the Treasury, he can tell us now. If he were calculating on the basis of today's needs and today's resources, he could tell us how much the Welsh Consolidated Fund would be. If it were the case that next week he and our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were introducing a Budget in some misbegotten year after devolution, what kind of figure would he be thinking of, either in the public expenditure White Paper earlier in the year or in the Budget, or in some special announcement to be made?
Would my right hon. Friend be thinking of £1,000 million or £2,000 million? How would he be calculating that? Would he be looking at the applications of the local authorities and their demands for rate support grant, the hopes that they have for expenditures on treasured projects and the expenditure that they have to undertake in order to keep the law and in order to meet their statutory obligations?
Would my right hon. Friend be taking all these into account, adding them up all together, dividing by the parsimony of the Treasury and then making an allocation to Wales? Would he be making a calculation on the basis of demonstrated local authority and statutory body need and then making an allocation based on a calculation of that need to a Welsh Assembly which has no responsibility even for collecting rates, let alone collecting taxes, but does have the authority for the allocation and the expenditure of the block grant—the Consolidated Fund—awarded to it?
These issues really must have more serious treatment than they have had hitherto recently or in the debates that we had last year. They are a very major consideration for the people of Wales.
9.30 p.m.
The objection to devolution in Wales, which is very substantial and very widespread, is based to a great degree on the feeling that we cannot afford devolution. It is not just that we have no spare resources to allocate to the petty Parliament that is proposed for the Coal Exchange in Cardiff; nor even that we do not have some additional spare capacity or resources in order to fund a parallel Civil Service, which will be necessary in order to avoid the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) of requiring honourable men and women in the Civil Service to serve two masters. That must be an unavoidable eventuality in the case of the Assembly setting a political course that diverges democratically from the course set by the majority and forming the Government in Westminster. There will not even be considerations of whether we can afford that dual outlay. The major consideration is how we gamble with the resources that we already have, awarded on the basis

of demonstrated need by centralised financial resources and centralised financial government.
The feeling of the people of Wales is that the reaction to the new demarcation of devolution in England among the English taxpayers and the English politicians will be that those who govern themselves, or even nearly govern themselves, can damned well pay for themselves. My right hon. Friends will be as tired of hearing me say that as I am of hearing it myself. But it is a question which has to be answered.
Here we are, a nation in deficit, dependent on the generosity—not necessarily the spontaneous generosity—of the taxpayers of the rest of the United Kingdom which, because of the deficits run by Northern Ireland and Scotland, means the generosity of the people of England, which in turn, because of the unfortunate circumstances of people in the North-East and Merseyside and of the stranded rural areas and the decayed inner city slums of much of England, actually means the people of relatively prosperous South-East England. They are not, to take the word of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), awarding us charity.
Neither do those who make donations in the form of their taxation payments, which help us to maintain a civilised standard of living in Wales, dependent as we are on public expenditure, see it as charity. At least, they do not do so at present, but when, repeatedly, year after year and even quarter after quarter, in the House of Commons and in the Press we debate how much the Welsh and the Scots are running a deficit to a particular part of England, can we then count on people's generosity and tolerance remaining at its historically high level?
It would not be beyond the realms of possibility that just as, for instance, Plaid Cymru or the SNP has managed to mobilise certain jingoistic resentments among a small number of people in Wales and Scotland about their status as Welshmen and Scotsmen, populist politicians in England, for the same purposes and using the same language with the same motivation, should not seek to generate the same resentments for the different purpose of excluding the Welsh and Scots in order to save themselves and their constituents considerable sums of money.

Mr. Tom Ellis: It was my hon. Friend's use of the word "generosity"—it might have been a Freudian slip—that led me to use the word "charity".

Mr. Kinnock: Generosity, if I may coin a definition that is not too far from the dictionary and which my hon. Friend will accept, is the act of unnecessary giving. If, however, taxpayers in England wished deliberately to assert that they did not mind what their tax was spent on as long as it was not spent in Wales or Scotland, they would not be generous. They do not do that because they know that there are reciprocal benefits in being citizens and taxpayers in the United Kingdom.
Because of the relationships enjoyed throughout the United Kingdom, of family and economic ties which I hope are unbreakable, under one Parliament, in one State, their contribution is defensible and comprehensible to them—and also generous, in the sense that they are giving not receiving directly in material terms as a consequence. If my hon. Friend would give me his definition of charity in those circumstances, it would further clarify the situation.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)? Is it not likely that the generosity will wear even thinner if those who are making the generous gestures—as he says, because of the important reciprocal advantages of being part of the United Kingdom—find that, in being generous, they are also being perpetually blamed for their alleged meanness by those representing Welsh areas in the Welsh petty Parliament?

Mr. Alec Jones: Who says that they are being mean?

Mr. Kinnock: The Under-Secretary of State's intervention was even more illuminating than the hon. Member's question. The Under-Secretary does not say that the people of England are being mean. I do not say it. Most of the Welsh people do not say it. But the Under-Secretary will be even more familiar than I with the repetitive war cries of nationalism in Wales and Scotland about the continued parsimony, insularity and calculated insult delivered by the people of England and the Westminster Government

against the people of Wales and Scotland.
My hon. Friend and I am familiar with the view of nationalism that, in order to justify itself, it has to blame the ills of a nation on some other nation. I resent that deeply as a Socialist, because I think that it diverts the working people of Wales from the true nature of our crisis in Wales—the way in which resources are wasted, abused and misused in a capitalist system.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Hear, hear.

Mr. Kinnock: It is no good the hon. Member saying "Hear, hear" when he destroys the very possibility of getting democratic Socialism and commanding Socialist machinery in this country by diminishing the Labour vote, as I am sure he will continue to do in his constituency and elsewhere, and permitting the triumph of Conservatism—which, whatever else it is dedicated to, is not dedicated to the triumph of Socialism.
How is the Consolidated Fund money to be allocated? Who is to be responsible for administering it? What will be the role of the local authorities? Can they continue to receive at least the moneys they currently receive? Will there be a wedge, a new imposition of inserted bureaucratic authority, between the people of Wales as they receive the money and services of their local authorities and those who originally provide those resources through the Treasury?
Will the Welsh Assembly, as the distributor of largesse from a Consolidated Fund, be literally a new tier of government? At present, the applications by the local authority associations, the demonstrated needs for local expenditure, whether capital or current, are the means used to secure resources from the holders of money—the Treasury or individual Departments of State secondary to the Treasury.
Will there, between those applicants and those providers, be insinuated not the democratic tier that my right hon. and hon. Friends protest, in the form of a Welsh Assembly, but simply a totally unnecessary and unwanted additional framework for chewing over the fat as to where the money should go without generating an extra halfpenny of financial resources to meet the needs of Wales?
Is not there also a danger when we say, as the Bill does, that there shall be a Welsh Consolidated Fund? There is nothing in the Bill, in Clause 42 or in subsequent clauses, which establishes how the contending claims for resources among the different parts, the different interests and the different people of Wales shall be met, arbitrated and considered in justice.
Different areas in Wales, as all hon. Members will acknowledge, have different priorities for expenditure—the rural, the industrial, the Welsh-speaking, the east and west, the north and south. There are also those whose main problems stem from their isolation and whose main needs are for massive improvements in transport. There are others whose needs arise from the difficulties they encounter with inner city decay, as in our two or three substantial cities around Cardiff.
The contest over the block grant, for limited resources, is on an entirely new level when we say that there shall be a Welsh Consolidated Fund, and the battle for those resources will have to be fought in an entirely different way. This is especially the case since there is not now to be a direct path, as it were, leading to the door of the Welsh Office, or to another Department of State, such as the Treasury, where the need can be argued and demonstrated, and the necessary money, or at least a proportion of it, awarded—or even a refusal. Now there will be a new authority, a new decider, a new arbitrator, and again without responsibilty for the collection of resources. It will have authority solely for asserting which of the contesting claims should be favoured in the scramble for resources out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
I thought that devolution, however conceived—even in the distorted form that we have it in the Bill—was at least intended to promote harmony inside the United Kingdom generally, and especially within the communities that it is designed to govern. If this is the pattern that is to be established in Wales, with a Consolidated Fund and little else, with no definition, and with the hope that it might just grow, and that the Assembly can somehow hone responsibilities and fashion procedures for making these decisions—because there is no formula laid down

in the Bill for establishing those procedures—I believe that such an open-ended and incompetent proposition can have been made only in one of two sets of circumstances. It can only have been made either by people who hoped that the Bill would never become the new constitution of Wales, or by those who knew that, because of the referendum, it could never become the new constitution of Wales.
Anyone who put forward a serious proposition concerning devolution in Wales, and who spent obviously such a short time in forming a sensible, logical, comprehensible, framework for the government of that country, must have been deluding himself even more than those who are seeking to delude the Welsh people—

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman has made the point that there is no formula laid down in the Bill for the allocation of resources between competing areas. There is no formula laid down in the House of Commons for the allocation of resources. It is the Executive always which arranges the formula with the competing claimants in the country as a whole. Surely the position will be no different in Wales.

Mr. Kinnock: Indeed, the position would be no different in Wales were it not for the fact that the Welsh Assembly will not be raising taxes as the House of Commons raises taxes. The Welsh Assembly will have to operate within a limited Consolidated Fund imposed on it from elsewhere, and not one that is voted for as it is in the House of Commons—and not, as the Welsh nationalists want, as a completely separate, self-sufficient and autonomous body.
But—and here is the big but of devolution—it is impossible for the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), as I have said to him on other occasions, to draw analogies between the practices of the House of Commons without a written constitution and sovereign unto itself and a devolved body which by its very definition is a subordinate, limited and irresponsible body that does not have to carry the can for its own actions. It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that because things do not happen here, because situations do not


arise here or because problems are not encountered here they will not be encountered in the Welsh Assembly. He might as well say that because they do not happen here there is no reason to fear that they happen in the Kremlin or in the White House or in the estates general. Those Parliaments are as different in their conceptions and responsibilities as the Welsh Assembly, as conceived, with the responsibilities allocated to it.
9.45 p.m.
There are no analogies to be drawn in that regard. Until the hon. and learned Gentleman begins to understand that the whole nature of devolution is in essence different from the nature of sovereignty—even sovereignty as we now conceive it in the House of Commons—he is not talking about the same kind of devolution as I am talking about or about the same kind of devolution as the Government are proposing. The hon. and learned Gentleman is welcome to propose his own kind of devolution. But even if he does he still cannot draw the analogy of the practice, custom, responsibilities, representation or anything else of the House of Commons because the two institutions exist for different purposes and will exist with different responsibilities.

Mr. Hooson: I should be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman's argument if there were not any number of examples in the world of subordinate legislatures in relationship to the mother Parliament. Let us take our own country. For many years there was the relationship between the Northern Ireland Parliament and this Parliament. The Northern Ireland Parliament was always indebted but not because of the relationship with this country. There was the peculiar religious problem of Northern Ireland which does not apply to Scotland or Wales.

Mr. Kinnock: During the earliest days of this debate I made an agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). I did so shortly after we had seen six or seven people slaughtered in the streets of Belfast. I said that as long as he promised not to mention Northern Ireland I would not raise the matter. But, since the hon. and learned Member

for Montgomery has brought the matter up, and since I have a somewhat less comradely association with him than I have with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon, he would be the last to pretend that the experience of Stormont as a subordinate Parliament for the Province of Northern Ireland had been a success in any respect whatever. In the advancement of democracy, in the government of the people, in the assistance of economic development—whatever criteria could be established and imposed on modern democratic Government—Stormont failed.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will say that that was because of partisan gerrymandering. If he said that, I would agree with him. But the fact was that if that excuse did not exist—if we had had a full-blown democracy or even one that bore a resemblance to the mainland democracy in this country for those 50 years in Northern Ireland—can he really pretend that with that kind of deficit Stormont would have remained unchanged for those years? Can he really pretend that if the people had had the self-confidence of not being in deficit, and had they not been distracted by the dogmatic rebellion that they conducted against themselves to divide their community, they would not have concentrated on the real economic and political issues of being subordinate to Westminster?
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman really pretend that if that Province had been sending Members to this House of Commons of a number more than equivalent to the majority of Governments in the House of Commons over that number of years, they would have been treated with the same friendly bonhomie that they have received? Can he really suggest that they would have experienced only rarely a challenge as to their business in speaking in the British Parliament?

Mr. Hooson: Answer my question.

Mr. Kinnock: I am answering the question by posing more realistic questions, instead of pretending that Stormont presented the model of a subordinate Parliament that we can usefully use in these debates. The hon. and learned Member should ask himself when Stormont raised taxes or had responsibility for spending its own money. The


answer is never, and that is why the analogy falls down completely.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend concede that it would have been inconceivable not only for the Labour Government of Clement Attlee and Herbert Morrison, but for the Conservative Government of 13 years that followed, of Harold Macmillan and Iain Macleod, had they had direct responsibility for Northern Ireland, to have discriminated over housing on religious grounds?

Mr. Kinnock: So the story continues. Perhaps we could debate the whole relevance of Northern Ireland in the devolutionary context on other occasions. I think that we have exhausted it now.
My purpose in intervening was to try to get answers from the Minister that I have been unable to obtain in various approaches, both written and oral. I want answers about the way in which the Consolidated Fund will operate, who is responsible for spending the money, and how representations can be made for getting increased allocations out of it. My only interest is to ensure that we do not lose a brass farthing in resources as a result of this Bill. If we have to have changes in Wales, they must be changes that will be of material and social benefit. No one has yet demonstrated how this Bill will accomplish those ends.

Sir Anthony Meyer: We have had a characteristically brilliant speech from the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), and quite a lot of it concerned the subject under discussion. We are debating the interaction between the need of Wales to get what is, strictly speaking, more than its fair share of United Kingdom resources and the creation of an Assembly which has spending but no money-raising powers. We are also discussing the interaction of relations between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The figures available for public expenditure in Wales, both in total and in terms of income per head, show that in the period for which figures are available Wales has received a disproportionately large share of United Kingdom revenue It is no refutation of that argument to say that Wales needs a higher proportion because

the incomes of its people are so low.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) put his finger fair and square on this by arguing that a lot of the expenditure was cosmetic. He said that we had not discussed the fact that there has been a shortfall in expenditure on and investment in the things that would enable Wales to have a level of economic activity equal to that of the rest of the United Kingdom, thus diminshing the need for very large transfer payments in favour of Wales.
Nobody is suggesting that it is any criticism of the people of Wales that they have to take more out of the pool than they put in. It is simply the fact that the figures available to us grossly understate the imbalance. The latest figures, to 1975–76, antedate the huge losses made by the British Steel Corporation, of which a high proportion must be attributable to losses incurred in Wales, if only because so much of the steel industry is in Wales. Neither do they reflect the huge sums of investment capital which was to have been poured into Port Talbot to make it into a major integrated steelworks able to compete with the giant steel producers abroad, it is true that this investment programme has been slashed. It is easy to imagine that this cruel dashing of once-high hopes will be just about the first bone which the elected Welsh Assembly will want to pick with the House of Commons.

Mr. Wigley: Does not the hon. Member accept that the difficulties in trying to define the revenue raised in Wales and expenditure within Wales are very great indeed, if for no other reasons than that, first, the income tax that is collected from the people of Wales is collected in offices outside Wales and not in Wales as such, and, secondly, in regard to expenditure in Wales, particularly of the capital type which he described, very often the vast majority of such expenditure is incurred outside Wales? For example, the CEGB project at Dinorwig involves a figure of £240 million expenditure, only £40 million of which will go back into the local economy.

Sir A. Meyer: It is difficult to attribute these costs and receipts with accuracy, but so many figures have been quoted in


this debate, on both sides, that I do not want to get involved in a long statistical argument or to have to return to sources and read out tables. Such tables as we have undoubtedly support the thesis which I have been putting forward, but I freely admit that there can be differences of interpretation.
I revert to the quarrel which, I suspect, will be the first quarrel between the elected Welsh Assembly and the House of Commons—namely, over the level of investment in the steel industry. There will be a demand that the reduced investment programmes should be allowed to go ahead. A Welsh Assembly will wish to maintain a steel industry and a coal industry.

Mr. Alec Jones: How does the hon. Gentleman think that investment in the steel industry is affected by the Bill? The subject of steel is not being devolved.

Sir A. Meyer: I am not suggesting that steel is being devolved. I am suggesting that, because of the mechanism by which the Assembly will be responsible for spending money and will not be responsible in any way for raising it, it will inevitably become the focus of every demand in Wales that more money should be spent on maintaining a steel industry and a coal industry at a level higher than would be case if the United Kingdom was balancing its investment programmes as a whole. I shall come to the mechanisms by which this will operate in the political relationship between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Alec Jones: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that, whether we are talking about investment in the steel industry or in the coal industry, after devolution there will be no stronger pressures for investment in steel and coal in Wales than there are now. This House will be responsible for those matters, and Welsh Members on both sides of the House will be pressing as strongly after devolution as they now press for expenditure in those industries.

Sir A. Meyer: If the Minister believes that there will be no increase in pressures, I think he will believe anything. Perhaps there will be no increase in powers, but

I shall shortly explain why I believe that those pressures will become very powerful indeed.
The coal industry and the steel industry, both of which are vital to Wales, account for the lion's share of the financial help which Wales obtains from England. This has gone on for so long that it is taken for granted to the extent that it is not realistic to expect any elected Welsh representative to accept that any pit or steel mill should be closed down or reduced in output merely because the money to subsidise it is not available out of purely Welsh resources. I could not possibly accept the closure of steel-making at Shotton merely because the £25 million needed to equip its ageing open-hearth furnaces with tandem furnaces is not readily to be found within the investment capital available in Wales.
10.0 p.m.
I have no doubt that the 12 or so Wales will prove equally unwilling to accept that steel-making at Shotton should be allowed to be phased out in this way. What is more, I should expect the Assemblymen in the Swansea area to be a great deal more robust than the Secretary of State has been in insisting that the money has to be found to enable the big expansion to go ahead at Port Talbot and for the jobs so badly needed there to be created.
I cannot imagine their behaving like those who complained that the 1973 plan for the expansion of the steel industry was too small but who now accept the abandonment of even that inadequate target. The Assemblymen of the Swansea area will not accept this. Nor will there be any incentive for them to do so. As United Kingdom Members of Parliament, we have at least to balance priorities. I am in a position to say that I want the United Kingdom taxpayer to subsidise Shotton to the extent of £25 million for tandem furnaces.
By the same token, I am to some extent handicapped when I come to demand a cut in the level of taxation. It is a cross which I have to bear and one with which every hon. Member is familiar. A Member argues for more money for his constituency and is immediately met by a Minister with the complaint "You are


demanding increases in public expenditure." The Assemblyman will be under no such constraint. He can win votes by arguing that he wants more money spent on investment on this and that in his constituency, and he is under no obligation to defend the level of expenditure thereby involved and the level of taxation which it implies.
For those reasons, I am convinced that the Assembly will operate as a powerful irritant. I once used the word "corrosive". I stick to that word. The Assembly will operate as a corrosive factor in the relations between England and Wales. The form of financing which has been chosen in the clause is the very worst form from that point of view.

Mr. Hooson: I have been provoked into making a contribution to the debate largely by the speech of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). He is preoccupied with his fear of nationalism. It seems to me that he sees bogymen where they need not exist.
There are overwhelming reasons why the people of the United Kingdom as a whole and the people of Wales will want the United Kingdom to remain as an integrated whole, whether we have an Assembly or not. Every speech that the hon. Member makes is a Second Reading speech against the Bill. If we are to have an Assembly, we need a Consolidated Fund and a Loans Fund. The hon. Member was using the arguments against the clause simply as a means of attacking the Bill as a whole.
Every debate on the Bill has been a Second Reading debate. In The Times today, there is a letter by an erstwhile Commons colleague of the Conservative Benches, Lord Hailsham, which suggests that the House of Commons has no control or very little control over the Executive and that the House has virtually become a means whereby an elected dictatorship rules the country. Listening to the thrust of many of the speeches in this debate, anybody would have thought that the House of Commons has a tight control over expenditure and that it controls the allocations of funds in this country. It does nothing of the kind.
I have seen the formula for the allocation of funds to local authorities. It is produced by the Treasury, and because of the Lib-Lab pact we were enabled to see it. We were asked to comment on it. The Treasury arranges it. The allocation of funds is no more obscure under the provisions of this Bill than it is at present. The hon. Member for Bed-wellty knows that perfectly well.
I gave earlier as an example to the hon. Member the worst example of a devolved assembly that I know of, Northern Ireland. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that, although the Northern Ireland Parliament was always in deficit, there was never any serious argument in the House of Commons that there ought not to be United Kingdom financing of that deficit. Consider the

subordinate Assemblies in West Germany or in Canada. I know that there the constitutions are different, but there is no precedent for this form of devolution which we are considering. We must therefore look at the relationship between such subordinate Assemblies and their mother Parliaments to see whether there have been the kind of frictions which the hon. Member suggests will occur here and be virtually impossible to solve. I do not think that a study of the many subordinate Assemblies of which we know supports that thesis.
What the hon. Member for Bedwellty is doing is arguing "I am against an Assembly because I am afraid of the nationalists taking it over". That is his theme. He is described in today's Liverpool Daily Post as the folk hero of the North Wales Coast, the hero of all those many Left wingers in Colwyn Bay and Llandudno because of his objections to the Bill. The truth is that he is deliberately trying to create fear in the hearts of the Welsh voters, to make them think that the Bill will be a vehicle for nationalism when it will be nothing of the kind.

Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to give that assurance. Suffice it to say that the Bill is the greatest step forward which nationalism has yet achieved, and I cannot recognise that as a victory for his point of view or for mine.
The hon. and learned Member is putting to me the example of other subordinate Assemblies. He is asking me to believe that in Germany, for instance, there are merely the Bundestag in Bonn and, let us say, Assemblies in North Rhine Westphalia or Bayern, and that in Canada there are simply federal Assemblies in Saskatchewan and Quebec. If the hon. and learned Member will not understand that the major weakness of what the Government are proposing is that they are proposing to deal only with areas that will stick out like a sore thumb and which cannot afford to do so—Scotland and Wales—he still does not understand the Bill, in spite of my repeated instruction.

Mr. Hooson: If I had my way, I would have regional Assemblies in England as well.
Let us deal with the situation as it is. The hon. Member is suggesting that the taxpayers of England will get fed up subsidising the people of Scotland and Wales. I do not think that anything of that kind will happen. For one thing, the taxpayers of England realise that it is to their advantage to preserve the unity of the kingdom. So also do taxpayers in Scotland and Wales. Everything else will dictate this. The conditions of the modern world will dictate this. When the hon. Member suggests that the taxpayers of England have been excessively generous—

Mr. Kinnock: I did not.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member spoke constantly of "generosity". He used the term "generosity of the taxpayers" several times. Much of the earlier money in the South-East of England is second and third and generation money made in the industrial areas of Wales, Scotland, the North of England and the Midlands. Much of it is investment money. The hon. Member for Bedwellty is trying to use his arguments to frighten the people of Wales.
The Welsh Assembly needs proper financial funds and controls which are no different from the sort of controls that we have in the House of Commons. I have sufficient faith in and knowledge of the Welsh people to know that they will be entirely responsible in the running of their affairs, just as they have been in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman's comments do no good to Wales or to his cause.

Mr. Brittan: The basis of our objections to the financial provisions relating to the Welsh Assembly is simple. It is that the provisions will not improve the standard of life of the people of Wales and will lead inexorably to serious conflict between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, to the disadvantage of both.
The question of the improvement in the standard of life in Wales can be dealt with extremely briefly, because during a fairly long debate no one has even attempted to suggest that any positive benefit to the standard of life of the people of Wales will derive from the provisions of the Bill. Not a single halfpenny extra will accrue to the benefit of

the people of Wales because of the Bill as a whole or because of the financial provisions in particular.
We can therefore move rapidly on to our second fundamental objection to the financial provisions, namely, that they are likely to lead to conflict between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. I start with the basic fact that per capita public expenditure in Wales is, totally justifiably, substantially higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The latest estimates suggest that public expenditure per capita is 16 per cent, higher in Wales than in England. It has been explained from all parts of the Committee why that is so and why it is justified. It is because of the particular history, geographic and social needs of Wales.
The first limb of the conflict argument is that there is little doubt that, despite the complacent words of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), a position in which we spend publicly more per head in Wales than in the United Kingdom generally will be increasingly difficult to sustain once the Assembly has been set up.
It is one thing for the extent of public expenditure in Wales to be determined within a single Parliament and Cabinet on a piecemeal basis, but it is quite different for the matter to be determined by negotiation between two separate bodies—the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Welsh Assembly—elected in different ways and having different loyalties. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was excessively optimistic when he talked about the people of Wales being far too sensible to allow that to happen. It is not so much a question of the people of Wales being too sensible or not sensible enough as a question of the people of England continuing to be as sensible as they have been in the past.
As the Member for an English constituency, I can give no guarantee that the people whom I represent in the North-East, who have problems every bit as great as those of the people in Wales, will continue to be as rational, understanding and properly tolerant towards the higher per capita public expenditure in Wales as they have been in the past. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery cannot give such a guarantee either.

Mr. Wigley: As a Member for the North-East, the hon. and learned Gentleman will surely recall that last year, especially at the time of the passage of the Scotland and Wales Bill, the great fear that many hon. Members and others in the North-East had was that if Welsh and Scottish Assemblies were established they would have greater leverage and power over economic resources and would deprive the North-East of resources that it needed. The hon. and learned Gentleman is now arguing the contrary. Surely, both arguments cannot be right.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: There is no inconsistency. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes relates to fears. I am not talking about fears of what the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies will be able to do. It is consistent to fear, on the one hand, that they will succeed in getting more than their share and, on the other hand, to begrudge them even their fair share. I do not regard that as inconsistent. I regard the risk of that as being typical of the sort of danger that one faces by setting up an arrangement of this sort. That is precisely the point that I was about to make.
On the one hand, the people of the United Kingdom are likely to be very much less ready to accept the proper degree of expenditure for Wales. On the other hand, there will be pressure in the opposite direction, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) observed. There will be pressure from the Members of the Welsh Assembly in demanding increasing sums from the Treasury as a whole and to regard every deficiency in the needs that should be met from public expenditure in Wales as being the fault of a mean British Exchequer, which will be regarded, as the hon. Member for West Lothian has repeatedly said, as the English Exchequer.
The basis for such claims on the part of the Welsh Assembly will start in the first instance because of the problem of calculating what the block grant should be, even if there is good will on all sides. As has been said, the Government in their White Paper, in bringing devolution to Scotland and Wales, recognise that the calculation of the block grant is not an easy matter. According to paragraph 100 of the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy: Devolution to Scotland and Wales", it is a task which involves

judgments of great complexity and political sensitivity.
In the first year it may be that there is a possible basis for the calculation of the block grant. In the first year, in which the history behind both parts of the United Kingdom is one in which needs have been calculated on a common basis, it will be possible to extrapolate further forward social changes and to say that the needs for the United Kingdom will be X and that the needs for Wales will be Y. However, as the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) remarked, once the Assembly comes into existence the whole essence of devolution involves that the Assembly will be able to decide to spend more on one devolved area and less on another. In other words, it will be able to use the block grant according to its own sense of priorities.
It may be that the Assembly will decide to spend comparatively more on housing and comparatively less on schools. The comparison will be with what the Secretary of State for Wales, as a member of a United Kingdom Government, was spending within the Principality in the year before the Assembly came into existence. Once that happens, standards will instantly start to vary. The standard of services between England and Wales will start to diverge. They may be better in certain respects in Wales and better in other respects in England.
When the block grant comes to be negotiated again, whether it is after one year or four years, I do not believe that those who are complaining in Wales because their schools have fallen behind the standard of provision of schools in England will be satisfied when the Exchequer blandly says "Your schools are not as good as the schools in Cambridge, Cleveland or North Yorkshire, but that is because the Assembly has decided to spend more of the money allotted to it on housing."
The idea that that will be an acceptable answer that will allay the claims of the Welsh Assembly and the claims of the people in the Assembly, whose business it will be deliberately to foment disagreement and hostility between England and Wales, is ludicrous. It has only to be posited for it to be seen to be an unrealistic expectation and as wildly optimistic as the expectation of the hon. and


learned Member for Montgomery in another context.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in many federal countries—for example, the Federal Republic of Germany—disparity exists between one service and another, and the Federal Republic of Germany is a far more cohesive country even than the United Kingdom?

Mr. Brittan: I know that the hon. Gentleman supports federalism. He has right on his side in the sense that, within a federal structure, this kind of difference is more sustainable. But, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) pointed out in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the position is very different when one is not setting up a federal structure but singling out two parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland and Wales—not the basis of differing needs but because it is felt that there has to be a response to the clamour from nationalism in those two parts of the United Kingdom.
In those circumstances, one has not a reorganisation of Government to distribute power to the regions on a federal basis in which it is understood that standards can vary but an ill-thought-out response to nationalist pressures. In that event, the situation will be very different. As the standards vary between Wales and England because of the exercise of the devolved powers, and as the claims that the areas which have had less money spent on them have become inadequate compared with England not because of the freely-chosen decision of the Welsh Assembly to spend less money but because the British Exchequer has been mean in the block grant, conflict will grow, and is bound to grow, because there are people who will deliberately foment it.
The Government made a spurious attempt to defuse that issue by putting forward the bogus proposal that there should be a four-yearly allocation of the block grant and an independent board to set up objective criteria.
It is significant that the board is not mentioned or created in the Bill. The answer that was given in previous debates relating to Scotland—that this should be arranged between the Assembly, when elected, and the United Kingdom Government

—was unconvincing. If the final arrangement ought to be negotiated between the devolved Administration and the United Kingdom Administration, that will not absolve the Government from setting out the general outline for such a board in the Bill. Instead, it is left completely empty.
As has been pointed out by Labour Members, the idea that we shall achieve less conflict and more certainty by attempting to create and determine a block grant over a period of four years is farcical when we consider the vicissitudes in the British economy over periods far shorter than four years. It is not a credible proposition that this will reduce conflict or bring about greater stability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) pointed out, it is designed to make life easier for the central Government. But my prediction is that, if the Bill ever reaches the statute book and reality, the central Government will not find their position eased.
I ask the Minister of State, in replying to the debate, to answer a question which was posed repeatedly in the Scottish devolution debates by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison): what will happen if, in the course of one year or of four years, the Government of the day decide that the economy requires massive cuts in public expenditure? How will such cuts in expenditure be achieved in Wales, or in Scotland for that matter? Will there be an ad hoc conference between the Welsh Assembly and the United Kingdom Treasury at which the Treasury will say "Under the order before the House of Commons, tranches of money are to come your way. Will you agree that the tranches should be reduced?" That is a genuine problem. It is one that arises from the block grant system.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Can the hon. and learned Member say how that problem is resolved for the county councils?

Mr. Brittan: The difference is that at the end of the day the political pressure on the county councils is different from that which is bound to occur with the Assembly. County councils may make representations individually or collectively. That is right, but they do not have the authority to speak for a nation


in the way that an Assembly will. If right hon. and hon. Members on the Treasury Bench think that it will make no difference at all when there is an Assembly which purports to speak for a nation and which has been elected on that basis, they have another think coming. A county council is an administrative body which is set up to administer certain services within an area which is chosen on a particular basis. One cannot say that about a Welsh or Scottish Assembly, because if that were so there would be Assemblies in all the regions of England.
The decision of the Government to ignore all the questions that were asked in their Green Paper on devolution for England and to do nothing at all about England is the plainest indication, if any were needed, that this reform—if it can be called a reform—has absolutely nothing to do with improving the government of Wales or Scotland and everything to do with responding to nationalist pressure.
In an intervention, the Minister referred to nominated bodies. He said that nominated bodies also suffered from the same objection as we raised—namely, that the divorce within a unitary State between a body that spends money and a body that raises it is inherently unhealthy and is likely to lead to conflict. A nominated body, because it is a nominated body, is chosen to spend money for a particular purpose. The members of that body have no authority whatsoever to speak for anybody at all. They are simply given the power to discharge responsibilities and spend certain moneys.
How can one compare such a body with an Assembly which is not only directly elected but is directly elected on the basis of a national unit of administration and on the basis that it is supposed to reflect the aspirations and sentiments of the nation? There is all the difference in the world between two such bodies.
That does not mean that revenue-raising for an Assembly would be more of an attractive proposition that should be followed. The reverse is true. The Government cannot find a way of doing it, and I doubt whether the provision of revenue-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly would raise devolution from its present nadir of unpopularity in Wales

to something more acceptable or more popular.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: What is the basis for the hon. and learned Member saying that this is the nadir of unpopularity in Wales, apart from what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) says?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Member for Bedwellty is an extremely reliable source on this matter, if not on other matters. I am not seeking to take a poll through the hon. Member for Bedwellty or others. My argument simply is that even if I am wrong and the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) is wrong and everyone in Wales is screaming for devolution—

Mr. Hughes: It is a curious way of doing it.

Mr. Brittan: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to me. I have given way to him twice. I ask him to do me the courtesy of listening to the answer that I am giving. I am not concerned to make a point about the popularity of devolution in Wales. That will be determined in due course.

Mr. Hughes: Answer the point about the nadir.

Mr. Brittan: The point I am putting, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me—

Mr. Hughes: Answer the question.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman seems to like asking questions but not to receive the answers. He is not listening. If he insists on intervening from a sedentary position again, I shall not bother to answer him at all.
My point is that, if revenue-raising powers were granted to the Assembly, that would not increase its popularity but would achieve quite the reverse. The Government have not favoured giving revenue-raising powers. There is an illogicality in dividing revenue spending and revenue raising in the way that it is done. We are led to the conclusion that the scheme is divisive in concept, uncertain in execution and dangerous in implementation and that it should therefore be rejected.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I thought that this clause dealt with various technical aspects of the Bill, and not having sat through these debates as often as some hon. Members I naively assumed that it was the kind of clause that a Treasury Minister could wind up a debate on. It merely establishes splendid Welsh institutions such as the Welsh Consolidated Fund, the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General and the Welsh Loans Fund. But having sat through the debate and listened to some of the splendid speeches I now recognise that these debates are basically Second Reading debates on the principle of the Welsh Assembly.
The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), from his great knowledge of Welsh affairs, which we all recognise, said that the Bill would not lead to an improvement in the state of life for the people of Wales. That was an a priori statement that he was unable to back up with any evidence. He said that the people of Wales received a higher per capita level of revenue than the people of the North-East of England. I should like to see his evidence for that, because one of the problems—

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Tell us the figures for the North-East.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman was listened to in silence by my Front Bench and I would hope for the same courtesy from him.
One of the problems of these debates is that we do not have a reliable break down of the per capita expenditure in the regions of England, and without this we have to compare the whole of England with the whole of Wales—

Mr. Brittan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Davies: The hon. and learned Gentleman must learn to contain himself. He read out a very long speech.
So we do not have reliable figures. Comparing the whole of England with the whole of Wales and the whole of Scotland is not comparing like with like, because with the enormous service sector in the South-East of England there is a wholly different situation from that in the North of England, Wales and Scotland. Thirdly, the hon. and learned Gentleman

said that the popularity of the Assembly had reached a nadir in Wales. He had no evidence to back up that proposition, either. He treated us to the kind of arrogant Tory speech to which we in Wales have become used over the years, which is why we have always rejected the Tory Party.

Mr. Brittan: It may suit the right hon. Gentleman's purposes to be vituperative, but surely he would not wish to misrepresent what I said. He will find from reading Hansard that I said that the per capita expenditure in Wales was higher than in England, and that if that continued after the establishment of the Welsh Assembly the people of the North-East of England, which has problems as great as those of Wales, would object. I did not say that the per capita expenditure in Wales was higher than in the North-East. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, wish to accept that that is so, if he wishes to maintain the standards to which he aspires rather than the low standards he ascribes so readily to other people.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is getting more and more pompous. The people of the North-East would react in that way only if they did not have proper figures. In fact, the hope must be that we can provide a regional break-down for England. Then we can see what the per capita income is for the North of England and compare like with like, instead of comparing two areas which are not similar.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised two points with which I should deal. He asked, first, about the Executive Committee. Clause 19 defines the Executive Committee. Perhaps my hon. Friend would prefer it to be called the "Cabinet". That would add a certain strength to the kind of emotional arguments that he puts forward in these debates. Nevertheless, it is described as an Executive Committee. It is quite clear what it is. It is set out very clearly in Clause 19.
My hon. Friend then asked about the Civil Service and what kind of loyalties—divided loyalties, so he alleged—the Civil Service would show. He will know that the Assembly civil servants will service and be responsible for giving advice


to the Assembly, and the Secretary of State's civil servants will give advice and be responsible for that advice to the Secretary of State. They will all be members of the Home Civil Service. They will not be any different from the Department of Employment civil servants, primarily responsible to that Department, or from the Treasury civil servants, whose primary responsibility is to that Department. Therefore, I do not see any bogy here for my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dalyell: May we first establish a fact? Does it not mean, therefore, that there will be significantly more civil servants doing the same jobs as is done at present? Is that right or wrong?

Mr. Davies: It may be half right and half wrong. There certainly will be more civil servants. I come to the question that my hon. Friend asked. He need not have asked the question, because in this case the answer is set out clearly in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which says that there will be needed
about £9½ million in respect of additional civil servants in Wales, including staff of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General and related costs, including accommodation costs ".
We do not dispute the fact that the Bill will mean more civil servants. They will not be doing the same kind of work. The Welsh Assembly civil servants will be advising the Welsh Assembly. The Secretary of State's civil servants will deal with the added responsibilities and the other responsibilities that the Secretary of State has which are not to be devolved to the Assembly.

Mr. Kinnock: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the example that he gave of civil servants now having a primary responsibility to the Department to which they belong but still a profound general loyalty and responsibility for all of the Government and all the Civil Service is distinctly different from the situation that we shall have after devolution? That will be that in the case of there being two different Governments of two different political colours, the civil servants of the Welsh Assembly must have not just a primary but a total responsibility there, and that means a different Civil Service.

Mr. Davies: Not unusually, my hon. Friend is playing with words again.

Mr. Dalyell: No.

Mr. Davies: My experience of Government is that in the main, civil servants, in practice, see their primary responsibility as being to fight the battles of their Department. I should have thought that the Welsh Assembly civil servants would operate in exactly the same way. I do not see any problems here. My hon. Friend is seeing bogies again.
Perhaps I may return to the main point of the debate—the fear that, somehow, things will be so terribly different, in relation to the Welsh Assembly acquiring its block grant, from the present position, in which the Welsh Office, through the Cabinet and through arguments with the Treasury, secures a sum of money which is spent exactly on these devolved services in Wales.
The reality of the situation is that there may be different mechanisms of government and a different way of doing it, but the battle for public expenditure, the battle for the block grant for the Welsh Assembly, will be fought basically and fundamentally in the same way as battles for public expenditure are fought now. They will be fought through the annual public expenditure exercise and in the Cabinet. The Secretary of State for Wales will make the case for financial resources for the whole of Wales. Indeed, he will have the Welsh Assembly at his door, pressing for increases in the money spent in Wales. But the fundamental choices on priorities will be made in exactly the same way as at present.
So I see no basic difference, except in the mechanism. I do not think that there can be a difference, when we maintain the unity of the United Kingdom and when the Government, the Executive and the Treasury are still responsible for general economic and financial management.

Mr. Wigley: Since we now have a Secretary of State for Wales arguing our case in Cabinet, and in future we shall also have an Assembly arguing our case, is it not true that Wales can only have a stronger voice to argue for the resources that we need?

Mr. Davies: I accept that pressure from a democratically elected Assembly must be greater than less cohesive pressure from different parts of Wales, but basically the elected Government will have to


decide. The best safeguard for the people of Wales getting the resources they need is a Labour Government at Westminster and not that lot sitting on the Opposition Benches.
But the difference in this Bill lies not in the initial allocation of resources but in how those resources are to be distributed and on what priorities. At the moment, once the allocation is made, and despite the fact that Ministers are responsible to this House, it is then an executive act which determines priorities, whether in the Welsh Office, between the Welsh Office and the Treasury, or among other Departments. Although these decisions are taken by Ministers, they are largely debated in the Civil Service, in Whitehall, behind closed doors.
If the Bill goes through, the difference is that that debate will take place in the open. The debate about the £876 million of devolved expenditure will then take place not in the Welsh Office, the Treasury or the Department of the Environment, but in the Cardiff Assembly, among the elected representatives of the people. Some hon. Members may not like it—perhaps at the end of the day their decisions and priorities would be different—but if we believe in democracy, in the fact that people have the right to control their own destinies in an imperfect and difficult world, we must believe that the elected representatives of the people have the right to debate the allocation of moneys of that kind.

Mr. Kinnock: My right hon. Friend is playing with words, especially since he is a Treasury Minister speaking for a Department in which Ministers have been known not even to give evidence to a Select Committee, let alone debate things in the open. Fine words about the necessity for public debate do not come too well from a Treasury Minister, although I know my hon. Friend's commitment to openness. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] It is no good saying, "Come on." These things have to be examined. Commitments to being against the Common Market, for instance, have to be examined; commitments to open and free expression about the allocation of resources have to be examined. We shall examine all these things in due course in the open, as it should be. My

right hon. Friend understands that. May I put it to him—

10.45 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has made a number of speeches today and his views are well known to the Committee. I think that the Minister should be allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. First, I am not seeking to teach you your business, but this is the Committee stage. Second, I have a specific question to ask. Third, the length of my remarks has been due entirely to the interventions of my hon. Friends, and they deserved and needed an answer.

The Chairman: Ask the question.

Mr. Kinnock: Even though I applaud openness of debate as much as my right hon. Friend does, I point out that we have got more in Wales than the £876 million. Even if we had only the £876 million, would the sums awarded from that £876 million to local and statutory bodies be more or less equitably distributed as a result of their being debated in the fashion that he wants?

Mr. Davies: The answer to both questions is that I do not know. I do not know whether we would get more in Wales if we had a block grant system. I do not know whether there would be more than the £876 million. I do not know whether the Welsh Assembly would be as wise as my hon. Friend in distributing this kind of money. Perhaps the Members would be very foolish people and distribute it very inequitably. I agree with my hon. Friend's commitment to open government. I should like to see greater control, through Select Committees, of what goes on in the Executive. But how can my hon. Friend, with his commitment to democracy, say that it is better for the Executive to distribute the £876 million than it is for the elected representatives of the people of Wales, many of them from his own constituency and many of them from his own local party? Is he saying that they are not wise enough to do the job properly, or that they are too foolish to distribute this kind of money? I do not believe that that is


his view. Knowing him, I am very surprised that he has put forward that kind of argument.

Mr. Kinnock: Would we get more?

Mr. Davies: That is not the language of Socialism. We are concerned, surely with the priorities in terms of expenditure. I think it is better that those should be determined, as I have said, by the elected representatives of the people of Wales than in the way they are determined at the moment.
I turn now to the point, also raised by my hon. Friend, about how the moneys would be distributed or decided upon. In Clause 46 it is made quite clear that the Secretary of State brings forward an order to this House, which is then passed by affirmative resolution—or not so passed—determining the amount of block grant, the amount of money that goes into the Welsh Assembly. I ask my hon. Friend again to consider whether that is not a better procedure than we have at the moment, with a public expenditure White Paper voted upon en bloc, in one piece, without any attempt to consider the different areas of expenditure? Here we are putting forward a greater measure of parliamentary control, and I should have thought he would wish to have this
The Secretary of State for Wales has to come here and argue his case and get an affirmative resolution through the House of Commons as to the amount of money—after the Government have determined it, usually through Cabinet—that will go to this elected body of the Welsh people. I should have thought that was preferable to the kind of system that we have at the moment, with too much power put into the hands of the Executive and too little in the hands of the House of Commons, and nothing at all in the hands of the people of Wales, who should be allowed to distribute this kind of money.

Mr. Kinnock: Will it be more?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is very keen on getting more. I am sure that those from his area sitting in the Welsh Assembly would do their best to get more for Wales and for his own locality.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I put some specific questions to the Minister. Will he answer them before he concludes his speech?

Mr. Davies: I have answered most of the hon. Gentleman's questions. I think that he asked a specific question in relation to the independent body as he liked to call it. He will have read the White Paper and seen that it is stated there quite sensibly, that it may very well be necessary to have a forum whereby needs can be determined. But this will not be the kind of body which I think he was envisaging or that is set up to determine and assess needs. It is the kind of body that is needed for research purposes in order that we can see the best way of allocating resources.
I come back to the point that I made at the beginning. At the end of the day this money will not be allocated by bodies, civil servants, studies or anything else. It will be allocated through the normal procedure of government—through the public expenditure review and through Cabinet and departmental Ministers arguing the case. In that respect nothing has changed in the Bill.
What has changed is that we have a better system of determining how these resources will be distributed—given the special needs of Wales, the special needs of different areas and the need to have these matters debated in public instead as of at present in the main behind closed doors.
I hope that the Committee will allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: Normally we would have proceeded to a vote, but there are some hon. Members who feel that crucial questions have been put and that no kind it detailed convincing answers have been given.
I want to be fair to the Minister of State. His opening remarks were very revealing. He said that he had come to the Committee thinking that this was a simple clause, which the Treasury could easily answer. I expect he was under the impression that he could wait here for half an hour, have some kind of polite debate, and then go on his way and get back to Treasury business.
For some of us, this is day 36 of the argument. My right hon. Friend has been spared 35 days of it. That is precisely what concerns many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. So far, the argument on the whole has been conducted by a comparatively small group


of hon. Members. In the heat of the day the burden has been borne by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith). He has answered almost every debate, especially on the Scotland Bill.
Some of us feel it high time that other Departments and other Ministers were brought in to hear what is going on. The truth of the matter is that the more one learns what is going on the more doubtful one becomes.

Mr. Tom Ellis: No.

Mr. Dalyell: That is the truth. I shall not name my hon. Friends or embarrass them, but some of them who have voted for this measure have said "Of course, we do not want to know about it". It is high time that other Ministers in key Departments like the Treasury tumbled on to precisely what was up.
Had he been present day after day, as some of us have, my hon. Friend the Minister of State would not have made the crude speech that he has made.

Mr. Alec Jones: There is no need to be so damned rude.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not being rude.

Mr. Caerwyn Roderick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister of State's only misfortune was not to be in lime to get his name printed in The Sunday Times Colour Supplement?

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), who is now a Minister, used to make eloquent Back-Bench speeches on devolution. My right hon. Friend's speech was a crude one, because of the references to the Executive. Whenever I ask questions about the Executive's operations I am quickly referred to Clause 19, which says:
One of the committees appointed under section 18 above shall be known as the Executive Committee and shall consist of the leaders of the other committees so appointed and no greater number of other members than one-third of the number of those leaders;
Quite frankly, that is an answer that does not get us very far
In the Scotland Bill we never got around to the nuts and bolts of the situation. We are still unclear about this Executive. Is it a Cabinet or not? Will the Welsh Assembly consist of full-time

or part-time politicians? I shall give way to any Minister on the Government Front Bench who will inform us about this. Are the Members of this Assembly to be paid as full-time or part-time politicians? We should know the nature of the organisation that we are discussing. It is indicative of the situation that when I ask a simple nuts-and-bolts, down-to-earth question about the way in which this organisation will work, the answer is the proverbial lemon.
I repeat, will it be in the form of a Cabinet or just a glorified county council? Many people who have spoken on this matter have been forthcoming. On one level they have said that of course the Assembly will be obedient, and that just like a county council it will know its place and take directions from Westminster. Yet on another level they have said that the Assembly will meet the aspirations of the people of Wales. They cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The important thing is not what this committee is called, or whether it looks like a Cabinet. The important consideration is the power of the Assembly, and these are very clearly defined in the legislation. The other important consideration is where the money is coming from, and that is also clearly defined. It does not matter what one calls the various committees.

Mr. Dalyell: There has to be some kind of Welsh Treasury. Unless we have that, I do not see how the mechanism will operate.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is making some pertinent points. The real tragedy is that the Minister of State in the first appearance by the Treasury has not talked about matters of absolutely crucial importance. For example, he has not told us how an incomes policy fits into the concept of this Bill, or how the economic strategy in Wales will be managed. Over the years we have been told that the Treasury must have power over the building programmes, and so on. All this has now gone with the connivance of the Government. It is pathetic that we have been told nothing of this.

Mr. Dalyell: That point was made about six hours ago, when we discussed the interventions made on 9th March by


the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who asked how one Parliament could give instructions to another Parliament or Assembly about what it would and could not do. Here again is an unanswered question.
I see the Assistant Chief Whip here, and I know that he wants to vote tonight. But these are very important matters, and this debate must continue tomorrow. I shall be on my feet until 11 o'clock, because there are many critical unanswered questions.
There is the issue of the Civil Service. One cannot just say that this is covered by the £9·5 million. The questions of the parallel nature of the double loyalties of the Civil Service has not been

answered. I ask the Minister of State for the Civil Service tomorrow morning to discuss with his coleagues in the CSD, and others with whom he discusses these matters, the answer to the questions that have been put.

I know that the Whips, possibly on both sides, want some kind of vote, but there are critical issues involving the loyalty of the Civil Service and important matters to be discussed on other clauses.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Commiteee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 125.

Division No. 157]
AYES
[11,00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Grant, John (Islington C)
Penhaligon, David


Armstrong, Ernest
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Ashton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce
Price, William (Rugby)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Harper, Joseph
Radice, Giles


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bates, Alf
Hooley, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bean, R. E.
Hooson, Emlyn
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Beith, A. J.
Horam, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rooker, J. W.


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Huckfleld, Let
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rowlands, Ted


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sedgemore, Brian


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Bradley, Tom
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Skinner, Dennis


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Janner, Greville
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton &amp; P)
John, Brynmor
Spearing, Nigel


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Stallard, A. W.


Cartwright, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cocks Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stoddart, David


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Stott, Roger


Cowans, Harry
Kerr, Russell
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lamborn, Harry
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Lamond, James
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tierney, Sydney


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dempsey, James
Madden, Max
Watkins, David


Doig, Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Watkinson, John


Dormand, J. D.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Weetch, Ken


Edge, Geoff
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Whitehead, Phillip


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mendelson, John
Whitlock, William


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mikardo, Ian
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, John (Newton)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Faulds, Andrew
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Woof, Robert


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ford, Ben
Moyle, Roland
Young, David (Bolton E)


Forrester, John
Oakes, Gordon



George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Golding, John
Padley, Walter
Mr. James Tinn and


Gourlay, Harry
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Park, George





NOES


Alison, Michael
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Awdry, Daniel


Anderson, Donald
Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)




Benyon, W.
Grist, Ian
Percival, Ian


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pink, R. Bonner


Biffen, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Body, Richard
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bottomley, Peter
Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Holland, Philip
Raison, Timothy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hordern, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Brittan, Leon
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brooke, Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhodes, James R.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
James. David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Ridsdale, Julian


Budgen, Nick
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Carson, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Channon, Paul
Kinnock, Neil
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Knox, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Cope, John
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McAdden, sir Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Macfarlane, Neil
Speed, Keith


Drayson, Burnaby
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spence, John


Dunlop, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sproat, Iain


Dykes, Hugh
Mather, Carol
Stainton, Keith


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Elliott, Sir William
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Tebbitt, Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Temple Morris, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Forman, Nigel
Mudd, David
Viggers, Peter


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Nelson, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Fox, Marcus
Neubert, Michael
Wells, John


Fry, Peter
Newton, Tony
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Onslow, Cranley



Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Page, John (Harrow West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr Spencer Le Marchant and


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Mr Peter Morrison.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 121.

Division No. 158]
AYES
[11.13 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Edge, Geoff
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Kaufman, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Kerr, Russell


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, John (Newton)
Lamborn, Harry


Bates, Alf
Faulds, Andrew
Lamond, James


Bean, R. E.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Beith, A. J.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Ford, Ben
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Forrester, John
Madden, Max


Boardman, H.
George, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Booth. Rt Hon Albert
Golding, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bradley, Tom
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mikardo, Ian


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grocott, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kllbride)


Cartwright, John
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Cohen, Stanley
Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Coleman, Donald
Horam, John
Moyle, Roland


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Oakes, Gordon


Cowans, Harry
Huckfleld, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Palmer, Arthur


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, George


Davies, Denzll (Llanelli)
Hunter, Adam
Penhaligon, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Dean, Joseph (Leads West)
John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles


Dempsey, James
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Doig, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)




Rogers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Stoddart, David
Whitehead, Phillip


Rooker, J. W.
Stott, Roger
Whitlock, William


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Sedgemore, Brian
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tierney, Sydney
Woof, Robert


Skinner, Dennis
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)



Stallard, A. W.
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Steel, Rt Hon David
Watkinson, John
Mr. James Tinn and


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Weetch, Ken
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
White, Frank R. (Bury)





NOES


Alison, Michael
Gray, Hamish
Pink, R. Bonner


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Grist, Ian
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Benyon, W.
Harrison. Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Biffen, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Timothy


Body, Richard
Hicks, Robert
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bottomley, Peter
Hordern, peter
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rhodes, James R.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hutchison. Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Brittan, Leon
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brooke, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jessel, Toby
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Buck, Antony
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Royle, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Knox, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carson, John
Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Colin


Channon, Paul
Le Marchant, Spencer
Silvester, Fred


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Luce, Richard
Speed, Keith


Cope, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Spence, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sproat, Iain


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stainton, Keith


Drayson Burnabv
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dunlop, John
Mawby, Ray
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Dykes, Hugh
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbitt, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pemoroke)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Temple Morris, Peter


Elliott, Sir William
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fairgrieve, Russell
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Viggers, Peter


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Warren, Kenneth


Forman, Nigel
Mudd, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, John


Fox, Marcus
Neubert, Michael
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Fry, Peter
Newton, Tony



Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Page, John (Harrow West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Gow. Ian (Eastbourne)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Percival, Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (VIEWDATA AND TELETEXT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Tonight I should like to raise the subject of Government support for the Viewdata and Teletext projects. These are means of transmitting information by both television and telephone to the public, industry and the community. They are brilliant British inventions. I think that they rank with the inventions of the jet


engine and radar in this country and that they are superb examples of British technical genius in action. Of particular importance is that they are two years in advance of any foreign rival. They are now on test and are not only proving that they work but that with good will they will meet the great expectations of the engineers who have developed them.
I have nothing but praise for the way in which a dozen British companies, including the Post Office, have worked together in harmony but quietly in developing these new communications systems. More is the pity that in the quietness of the House we shall be told a story of British achievement, bearing in mind that the House is so often filled to hear the story of a British industrial disaster. Perhaps it is a reflection on all of us that we have become too used to failure and are not used to success when we see it.
Our need tonight is to talk of the way in which we can bring this project, which is on the threshold of success, to the reality which I am sure both sides of the House want to see.
I particularly praise the inventor of the system, Mr. Sam Fedida, who was once in the Post Office, and also the entrepreneurial style of Sir William Barlow and Dr. Alex Reid, who in the Post Office have shown a vigour, enthusiasm and entreprenuerial style which has been too long invisible in the Post Office. Praise also goes to those who worked on CEEFAX and ORACLE in the IBA and the BBC, who in parallel are leading the world—and my superlatives are carefully gauged—in this "first" in information technology. As a technologist myself, from what I have seen to date I believe that we have here a brilliant system, which will be a winner.
The problem to which I wish to address myself tonight is the role that should now be played by the Government to ensure that the systems developed to date achieve the success that they deserve. For too long this country has failed to harvest the fruits of its own technology. For too long we have suffered industrial policies which have subsidised failure rather than stimulated success.
The beauties of Viewdata and Teletext are that they are simple and will help

all the people of this country, and I hope, the world to gain a new freedom of access to information, not only across their own nations but across the frontiers of the world. They can be signal contributions to understanding between peoples.
The clever parts of Viewdata and Teletext are translations of the concepts that started off as thoughts, drawings and views in the minds of people which now have been translated into systems that are proving that they are real and reliable. They are—I hope that the Government will recognise this—the first recognition in this country that a world information revolution is upon us. They are both systems which are built by venture capital from private industry and from the Post Office. Ranges of work have been done by companies such as Mullard, GEC, ITT, Rank, Decca—a dozen companies which make up the forefront of British communications technology.
I have no doubt that the Minister will dispute my view, but I must say that I am delighted that the heavy hand of Whitehall has not been on the motive power of the project. On the other hand, I will be the first to say that if any Government are needed in an industrial project their presence in specific areas where help is required needs to be timely and of sufficient strength to complete the job properly.
I should like to propose certain ways in which the Government could and should now help. The first is to endorse the systems as viable ways in which information can be conveyed between people. This may sound an unusual proposal to put before a House or to a Government—that all they have to do is to shout "Hurrah"—but this is such a wonderful invention that an endorsement by a British Government would be tremendous, timely and completely fair and reasonable.
Secondly, I believe that the Government should give leadership in establishing that the viable and reasonable international standards for all these systems can be achieved.
Thirdly, I ask that the Government should recognise that these systems are means of improving the process of government at all levels of government in the United Kingdom, whether it be at


national, county or district level, or within the national corporations of the State.
To enlarge briefly on each of these proposals, taking endorsement first, a public expression by the Government of good will towards the project would not only be a spur to those who have quietly given so much of their time and their effort but also would be a tremendous help, I understand, to export sales projects. Be fore I came to the House, I knew what it was like to try to sell electronic goods in a very competitive market in the United States and the difference it makes or does not make to have the support of a British Government. I did not have it and it was like going up the north wall of the Eiger. Why not give these people the chance of a smoother ride round the softer side?
I understand that the Post Office export division is all ready to go. I think that it should be assisted.
We must also, I hope, look to the Government to ensure that any necessary legislation—this needs to be examined—is on line on time.
On the question of leadership, to put it bluntly the French came in two years after we had started, and now, as is too often the case with our French allies, they are unwisely, from a technical viewpoint—I do not think it is my place in the House tonight to give way any technical secrets to which I might have become privy—trying to force through international specifications in favour of their equipment without the authority of technical backing which they should have.
The Government could give leadership and I believe should give leadership in the relevant international authorities such as the Conference of European Posts and Telecommunications to make our systems and their systems acceptable rather than to find a situation where the French are trying to make our system unacceptable and theirs acceptable. We must speak through the Government with one authority for telecommunications and broadcasting at the debating tables where these international standards are agreed.
Thirdly, I think that the Government should explore immediately, in collaboration perhaps with the central computer authority of the Civil Service Department which I recognise is another Department

from that of the Minister who is kindly replying to the debate tonight, the use of this breakthrough in information processes to improve the process of government. I have absolutely no doubt that the Viewdata and Teletext could bring to the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, the Department of Trade, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Minister's own Department, new ways in which information could be gathered and exchanged.
I hope that it would help the market surveys of the Department's own requirement boards, which, I was told in a parliamentary reply, are unable to carry out their own surveys through a lack of expertise. I hope it would help the Foreign Office in the United Nations debate on direct satellite broadcasting, because these systems provide a means of supporting the British contention that we can supply world-wide freedom of access to information across frontiers.
However, the Luddites are at work, and it is not unusual with new technologies to find people speaking sourly of something that looks like progress. I understand that the National Union of Journalists is already in dispute over one of the systems about who should get the jobs involved. But this is a new project which offers more than enough jobs for everyone, and everyone should welcome the chance of many more jobs. I hope that all the unions will look upon this development as an opportunity for new employment.
I understand that the Advertising Standards Association feels that someone should censor what is available. The deputy director of that authority believes that Viewdata could become
a haven for all sorts of crooks and misleading advertisers who could not find a home in the existing media".
That Luddite attitude must be dismissed rapidly, so that it does not present an obstacle to what should be a great British venture. To achieve that I should be happy to give Mrs. Whitehouse the chance of acting as a temporary censor.
In this century we have seen two great revolutions in communications. The first was that of the Wright brothers, who opened the door to Concorde, by which


the world can be spanned in a day. The second has been the revolution in communications by which we have literally moved from smoke signals to Viewdata and Teletext. We have changed communications so that instead of people having to travel to find facts they simply use television and the telephone. It would not be going too far to say that here for the first time in 20 or 25 years since the world first saw the computer we can look to a new world of communications which is dawning before us.
The systems are a world of enterprise for industry. New jobs will replace old and more jobs will be waiting. We are only one year away from the systems being available in the High Streets of Britain, yet their names have never before been mentioned in Parliament. We now need a combined effort by industry and Government to reach out for the international success that these systems truly deserve, and I look forward to the Government tonight meeting me in that request.

11.38 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I thank the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) for raising this important subject tonight. The CEEFAX and ORACLE systems of the BBC and the IBA respectively, and the Viewdata system of the Post Office, mark important advances in communications. I commend the hon. Member for the constructive way in which he made his points. He quite rightly commended the organisations concerned and their staffs directly concerned with the projects. These are fine British achievements, which have given this country a world lead, and on behalf of the Government I offer my congratulations to all concerned. I shall certainly pass on to Sir William Barlow and his staff the hon. Gentleman's very kind words of praise.
The hon. Gentleman has gone into some of the differences between the two systems, but I know that he will understand that the BBC and the IBA come within the areas of responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who I am sure will take very careful note of what he has said tonight, particularly in relation to the CEEFAX and ORACLE services. My own Department is, of course, responsible for the Post Office and for the well-being of British

manufacturing industry in general. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I tend to concentrate a little more on Viewdata and the set manufacturers, though I assure him that I shall attempt to cover the CEEFAX and the ORACLE aspects in my remarks as well.
Let me make it clear that the setting up of the Viewdata service and its running come within the operational powers of the Post Office, as defined by the Post Office Act 1969. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department is kept very closely informed of progress.
As the hon. Gentleman says, the French authorities are developing their own teletext system, ANTIOPE, which, together with an associated system, is planned to provide services comparable with Viewdata and CEEFAX and ORACLE. I understand, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the technical specifications are rather different.
The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly referred to the Post Office's embarkation on a public trial for the Viewdata service in June this year. Some 1,500 subscribers in London, Birmingham and Norwich will take part. Over £8 million has already been invested by the Post Office in the project, and in February it announced that it had brought forward by one year the start of a full Viewdata service to the first quarter of 1979. It is allocating a further £18 million for the service in 1979 alone, which is, I think, a reflection of the confidence that the Post Office has in its system.
By comparison, I understand that the French are not quite as advanced in setting up the commercial version of their ANTIOPE service.
On the matter of exports, Viewdata has already achieved a major break-through by the sale of Viewdata know-how to the German Post Office. I believe that this should provide an important bridgehead into establishing Viewdata with foreign telecommunications administrations.
There have also been a number of private demonstrations abroad, as well as seminars and public demonstrations at fairs and exhibitions, the latest of which have been in Zurich and Hong Kong. As a result, a number of countries, including European countries, have shown a great


deal of interest in purchasing the Viewdata software. In the United States, the New York offices of Insac Data Systems Limited, which is a subsidiary of the National Enterprise Board, already have an operational Viewdata terminal, which is linked to the computer centre in London, for demonstration purposes. The Post Office hopes that an agreement will be concluded in a few months' time for Insac to market Viewdata in the United States of America, where there is already a considerable amount of interest being shown. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, therefore, that these opportunities are also holding great promise for British television set manufacturers and are very encouraging for them.
On the question of international discussions, to which the hon. Gentleman has quite rightly referred, the question of standards for Viewdata-type and CEEFAX and ORACLE systems is already under discussion. The Post Office has informed me that it and the German Post Office are already in touch with the French authorities for ongoing discussions on the matter of standards to see what common areas exist between the Viewdata and ANTIOPE systems.
On the multilateral level, the question of harmonising Viewdata-type services is being examined by a study group within the Conference of European PTT Administrations, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of which the Post Office is an active member. The international telegraph and telephone consultative committee of the International Telecommunication Union is also turning its mind to this type of wired service, as well as the broadcast teletext services.
In fact, the ITU's international radio consultative committee, on which the Home Office, BBC, IBA and the set manufacturers are represented, has been discussing the broadcast teletext services for some time and it is now coming together with the international telegraph and telephone consultative committee to take the discussion further. Although that committee's interest lies mainly in line transmission standards and alphabet standards, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Post Office will take a very active part in the work concerned. Certainly we in the Government will keep a

close eye on the progress of such international discussions to ensure that should any Government-to-Government intervention appear helpful, such opportunities will be grasped firmly.

Mr. Warren: I should like an assurance that the Minister understands that at the moment there are two authorities speaking in these international conferences on behalf of the United Kingdom, whereas the French speak with one unified voice. But they are trying to make the running with a system which is later than ours and which has major problems which they are glossing over.

Mr. Huckfield: I am very much aware of what the hon. Gentleman says about the activities of the French, and we shall take it to heart.
It would probably be helpful if I explained that the Post Office has made it clear that it will maintain the current Viewdata standards for the foreseeable future. At the same time it recognises that there may eventually be a need for a second generation of Viewdata service, at which time matters of compatability both for the television set manufacturers and the information providers will have to be considered.
The hon. Member mentioned that there was some concern among the manufacturers that there should be closer co-operation among the various parties concerned on the line to take in international discussions. The Post Office assures me that it is fully seized of the need for very close co-ordination on this. It points out that, through the Viewdata liaison group, which comprises representatives of the Post Office, set manufacturers and information providers, the British Radio Equipment Manufacturers Association study groups, which include Post Office, BBC and IBA officials as well as the set manufacturers and its bilateral discussions with the BBC and IBA, it strives to present the most convincing and co-ordinated case in the various international discussions.
The Home Office, which also takes part in international discussion on this, keeps closely in touch with the British parties involved. It does all it can to promote the British system vigorously in the international forums to which it is a party.
As for the Government's attitude, the fact that the Post Office is prepared to


commit funds now to a public Viewdata service, and bring forward the start of the service by one year, demonstrates the Post Office's confidence in Viewdata and in the ability of all concerned to market it effectively. The Post Office is not in need of, and has not asked for, financial support from the Government to run the Viewdata programme; but my officials are in discussion with it to see whether there are any ways in which the Government can help.
I noted what the hon. Member said about the industry's desire to improve its promotional activity for Viewdata in Europe. I ask that representatives of the industry—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has contacts with it—make contact with my officials in the Department through the normal channels so that we may consider how the Government might lend support. I should perhaps mention that, through the micro-electronic support scheme, my Department is providing financial support totalling about £300,000 to two British companies involved in the manufacture of semiconductors to assist them in the development, production and marketing of custom-designed integrated circuits for Viewdata and broadcast Teletext. So there is some activity in that area. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to use his contacts with the representatives of the industry to ensure that we have more.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has authorised the broadcasting authorities to continue the development of their broadcast Teletext services. My right hon. Friend, while recognising that the development of Teletext raises a number of other important issues—particularly the implications for other communications media, particularly the newspaper industry—has made it very clear to the manufacturers that in his view the Teletext services are here to stay and has expressed his hope that that indication of the Government's attitude will encourage the industry to provide the necessary equipments at a price which will bring them within the reach of the public at large. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that, if we are to get this system accepted widely in public, we have to concentrate particularly on bringing down the cost of the receiving sets.
I should like to deal with two points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the first of which was the idea that the Government should demonstrate their support of the Viewdata service by placing substantial orders for receivers for their own use. The Post Office and the set manufacturers are already in touch with those responsible for the procurement of communications equipment for central Government, and introducing them to the potentialities of Viewdata in an office environment. Clearly, the Government's own procurement decisions must be guided primarily by efficiency and economy in carrying out their functions, but I am sure that Viewdata is being evaluated with a sympathetic awareness of its national importance. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the right quarters.
The hon. Gentleman's other point concerned doubts raised recently about the maintenance of standards by advertisers using Viewdata. The Post Office is conscious of this problem and is discussing with the Advertising Standards Authority ways in which it can be tackled. The Post Office has adopted a policy under which editorial control rests firmly with the information providers, and matters of advertising standards have to be considered against this background.
Finally, I once more thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what I think is a very significant British achievement. He sought the Government's endorsement. I have tried to give him the Government's endorsement tonight. I gladly, willingly and joyfully give it to him. I take this opportunity to reassure all concerned that it is the Government's view that the standards presently being used for the Viewdata, CEEFAX and ORACLE services are effective and well proven. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government give their full backing and encouragement to the promotion, within Europe and elsewhere, of the international acceptance of these British standards.
We have a great British achievement. We can be proud of that achievement. We want to extend that achievement elsewhere.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.